“Theresa May, where’s the money for Grenfell?” Rapper Stormzy rages into his microphone, eyebrows burrowed in passion while pseudo-rain runs down his face and bare chest at February’s Brit awards. In a furious rant against the government about last year’s Grenfell fire, in which more than 70 people died, the English grime artist, formally known as Michael Omari, asked the prime minister:
“What, you thought we just forgot about Grenfell?” Adding: “You criminals, and you got the cheek to call us savages, you should do some jail time, you should pay some damages, we should burn your house down and see if you can manage this.”
Celebrity culture has found its way into many of our lives and, with the rise of social media, we are now more than ever exposed to such people’s views and personality outside of their branding. Whether it’s Stormzy’s opinions on the prime minister, Meryl Streep condemning Trump at 2017’s Golden Globe awards, or Emma Watson campaigning for gender equality as a UN goodwill ambassador, these stars are showing that they are more than just their job titles.
Rihanna recently demonstrated her influence, wiping $800m off Snapchat’s revenue with a single social media statement, outing the tech-giant’s insensitivity to domestic violence. The advert, which stated: “Would you rather slap Rihanna or punch Chris Brown?” was shared on the singer’s Instagram with the caption “throw the app away”, to which masses of her followers responded to by doing exactly that.
But just how much prestige do celebrities have? A survey presented by the Telegraph showed TV celebrities to be ranked higher than politicians in regards to their influence with young people. With such a high status, perhaps they should use their platforms in a positive way.
Dr. Carie Schuster, chartered psychologist, says: “We live in a celebrity culture, where society places a high value on celebrity life and values. This then sets the wider social tone, if you like.”
Despite a celebrities entitlement to vote democratically and have opinions like us all, some argue that their status has elevated a level of ignorance and naivety to what is happening in the ‘real world’. Dr. Arthur Cassidy, “the celebrity doctor” and social psychologist, thinks it’s important for young people to recognise this. He points out: “When they [celebrities] make statements, they haven’t really worked through the arguments. Their arguments are very superficial, so they haven’t really seen the full story.”
But in a time in which something of a celebrity is running the United States, some feel like they have every entitlement to have their say. Louis Michael, Channel 4’s ‘Gogglebox’ star, defends his freedom of speech.
“We’re still human beings, and we still have a brain that reacts to things that are going on in the world. I think that if you have a platform then you have just as much right as anyone else to talk about it.”
With around 90,000 followers on Twitter, Louis, 21, acknowledges his privilege and understands that “not everyone is lucky enough” to have their voice heard. The Channel 4 star takes advantage of his social media platform to vocalise opinions and raise awareness on a range of social and political issues.
Louis takes to Twitter and Instagram promoting environmental awareness, veganism, and human rights, whilst speaking out against war and capitalism. During the EU referendum and recent elections, Louis also felt it was important to share his views. “I was very vocal because it was a national debate and everyone was involved in the dialogue.” He says.
While many take the sentiment that stars must acknowledge their role-model status, Louis questions whether the responsibility is really his. He says:
“Perhaps it’s the parents’ responsibility to raise children who can think for themselves and who can use their own critical judgement, rather than blindly believing whatever it is a famous person is telling them.”
While there is not so much dispute about celebrities involvement in ‘positive preaching’, some believe that politics and A-listers’ views should not collide. Gustavo Cristobal, San Diego University journalism student, 21, takes the strong view that celebrities are “definitely in their own bubble” and have no reason to openly broadcast their opinions. He says: “They have their own stuff going on in their lives. They’re really busy and I highly doubt that they are properly informed on the current issues and everything either candidate is trying to address.”
In the cases that celebrities do intervene, Gustavo thinks “they should be more careful with their views and treat themselves as a politician; with polished, well-informed views, and not just say something without researching the topic”.
Sherry Nouraini, climate change activist and author of ‘Social Solutions for Climate Change’, welcomes celebrity support in promoting her cause. She says: “In this world where there is so much coming at people from all directions, a celebrity is in a unique position of having an audience that actually want to hear from them.”
Nouraini praises Leonardo DiCaprio’s documentary-film, Before the Flood, in which the award-winning actor teams up with National Geographic to raise awareness and bring forward solutions on climate change.
The actor, who has become widely recognised for his work outside of Hollywood, founded the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation in 1998 in a mission statement to protect the planet. In a speech at 2014’s UN climate summit, Dicaprio said:
“This is not a partisan debate. It is a human one. Clean air and a livable climate are inalienable human rights. And solving this crisis is not a question of politics. It is a question of our own survival.”
The foundation has made a direct financial impact of over $80m in environmental grants since 2008 and continues to fundraise and support environmental projects.
Nouraini says that if she had to, she would advise celebrities “to lean towards a positive message” in encouraging change. She adds: “I think that people have had enough of being preached at about the negative consequences.” Even when it comes to politics, the activist believes intervention from those with a platform is positive. She says:
“What a celebrity can do is raise awareness about the point of view of different political leaders, and at minimum a celebrity can encourage people to get out and vote.”
Many charities take advantage of the celebrity effect, with famous faces often used to encourage donations to varying causes. Carie Schuster, chartered psychologist, sheds light on the benefits of positive celebrity intervention. She explains: “When celebrities do worthwhile things like support charities, this can stimulate a good copycat effect.” Whether it’s Matt Damon’s bid to save the world’s water crisis, or Ricky Gervais speaking out on animal rights, causes are increasingly finding Hollywood support.
But is this ‘copycat effect’ prominent when it comes to the wider political picture? Can we really assume that Stormzy’s outburst against Theresa May made people second guess their votes at the next general election? Schuster thinks not. While those who already agree with celebrity opinion may support them further, those who don’t are not so likely to radically change their views.
Comments