In this post I would like to consider the "Love Army for Somalia" campaign, as an example of the pros and cons of celebrity activism. I agree with Hannah's reflection post (which distinguished informed, effective activism from pandering, self-absorbed publicity stunts) that celebrities who educate themselves and partner with established organizations can make a positive difference, by using their social capital to direct support towards important causes. However, even causes that are well thought out face an inescapable absurdity when they try and connect incommensurable human experiences.
First, on the campaign itself. Several large "stars" (pictured below) made YouTube videos promoting a campaign called Love Army for Somalia, raising millions in aid. The campaign partnered with the American Refugee Committee, and eventually delivered 1300 tons of food to Somalis in need. When I saw the campaign, I was immediately struck by the disparity between the seriousness of the famine and the blitheness of the internet celebrities promoting it. Somalia has had 2 other famines in the last 25 years, neither of which was responded to adequately by the international community, and while the exact casualties are not known, I have seen estimates that 300,000 people died in each event. This time around, the UN was able to raise the billions it required to prevent famine (although famine is only the most extreme point on a sliding scale, and the consequences of food insecurity are catastrophic long before the threshold for famine is reached) as well as access to the hardest-hit parts of Somalia, and many lives were undoubtedly saved. While a few million dollars in personal donations should not be disregarded, and the campaigners deftly employed social media fame to raise the profile of an otherwise obscure problem, the amount given pales in comparison to what was required. Moreover, the gravity of the event was never conveyed, beyond the notion that famines are bad and should be prevented. I am still morally conflicted by the campaign, because the celebrities involved did many things right and made a material difference people's lives, but they also transformed an almost apocalyptic concern into one that could be easily incorporated into everyday life. At the same time, I know it is impossible for us to understand famine if we haven't experienced it, and whatever grim approximation could have been conveyed wouldn't have generated nearly as much interest. The entire event speaks to how unequal the world is. Some people are dying of preventable disease and starvation while others read about their misfortune on the organic-LED displays of this year's phone, guided by AI-curated news feeds processed in cloud computing server banks across the globe. How are experiences supposed to be communicated across this divide? The prospect borders on absurd, and celebrities certainly cannot be blamed for trying.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorAmerican University Class of 2021. Interested in state-building and economic governance. Archives
December 2018
Categories |