Pop culture and politics
Beware the celebrity pundit
Brendan Boyd
The other day a friend of mine asked me if I was aware that Canada has one of the poorest foreign aid records among Western, developed countries. When I asked him where he had heard this, he replied “from the lead singer of the Boomtown Rats,” Bob Geldof. Geldof is organizing several concerts in Europe, the United States, Canada, Japan and South Africa called Live 8. The event is focused on pressuring the West to provide debt relief and increase foreign aid to impoverished countries. Musical acts such as Pink Floyd, Paul McCartney, Elton John and U2 are performing and lending their support to the cause.
Live 8 has drawn attention to the issue of poverty in Africa and other parts of the underdeveloped world in a way that could not be achieved within the political realm alone. Live 8 is a clear example of the growing relationship between popular culture and politics.
Remember the U.S. election last fall when countless celebrities weighed in on the candidates, political parties and a host of relevant issues? Concerts, tours and benefits were held to raise awareness and finances for both candidates. Strategically, the Kerry campaign deliberately appealed to young people, who typically vote in low numbers. Gaining the support of famous performers was an instrumental part of this strategy.
The relationship between politics and popular culture is not new. Since the end of the Second World War and the emergence of the baby boomer generation, popular culture has been connected to politics and social issues. In addition, art, including music and painting, has never been far removed from the political and social realm. So what is different today about the influence of popular culture on politics?
The most important difference is that celebrity culture has become so powerful that artists, actors, musicians and other celebrities are gaining power and influence that is divorced from their art. This is a result of nothing more than their fame and celebrity status. These “stars” have a broad audience and powerful means of expression that many politicians would envy.
There are two main distinctions that show how popular culture’s role in politics is changing. The first is the difference between raising awareness of an issue and giving an opinion on it. While many celebrities claim to be raising awareness for issues such as human rights and poverty, they are giving their views and opinions on these subjects more and more. In addition, the way in which a person hears about something will undoubtedly influence how they view it. Raising awareness about a particular issue can never be unbiased, and an artist’s plea for support can be very compelling.
The second distinction is that performers are less and less likely to express themselves through an artistic medium. They are increasingly using their celebrity status to make their opinions heard. Instead of writing a song about social change, it is much more likely that an artist will make appearances or speak at events, allowing the music to remain neutral and appealing to all. An example of this is Bono, the most visible pop culture figure in the political world. The music of U2 now focuses on personal relationships as opposed to older material that incorporated political expression into the lyrics.
It is not necessarily a problem that celebrities have political ideas and wish to express them. This is not a polemic against the entertainment community. A person is a person, regardless of their level of fame, and is entitled to express their unique personality in whatever way they choose. The fact that some have a larger platform is not their fault. That being said, the reverence that Western culture has for fame and celebrity has created a situation where many people value the opinions of “stars” more than they should.
Tom Cruise is no more qualified to address current U.S nation-building attempts in Iraq to foster a democratic culture and civil society than the guy you meet at the bar this weekend. He has no formalized training in politics that makes his opinion more valuable. Look at it this way, you wouldn’t ask Lindsay Lohan for medical advice if you thought you needed your appendix out, would you?
A proponent of grassroots, direct democracy might retort that political specialists harm democracy with their own agendas. Why, then, do we put so much weight on what celebrities think about politics? Each person’s opinion is worth exactly the same as another’s, regardless of their profession or how many people recognize them.
Ultimately, it is up to the general population to be critical when listening to a celebrity that is lending their voice to the latest fashionable cause. (Darfour is so in this year, I can’t believe he’s still promoting awareness about Afghanistan.) Like anything else, it is important to look at as many different viewpoints as possible and ensure their reliability.
Celebrities have done a world of good turning people on to specific issues and politics in general. Younger people especially benefit from their favorite celebrity imploring them to learn more about the world and become a participant rather than an observer. This, however, is only a starting point, and this awareness should be complemented by a wide variety of viewpoints and critical assessment of the source of these opinions.
Brendan Boyd has a master’s degree in strategic studies from the University of Manitoba.
