Original Coverage & Source Attribution: www.cornellsun.com
Time and time again, I encounter the idea — usually under social media posts — that celebrities must speak out on social and political issues. It isn’t a striking concept that those with amplified voices should use them for good wherever they can; or even that they have a responsibility to do so. But is the possession of a public platform really a sufficient condition for such responsibility?
At its heart, the thought is a good one. It asks those in the limelight to attempt at positive change, or at the very least, to bring issues into greater public visibility. For who better to do this than those whose pictures receive over 100,000 views, those who stand on stages surrounded by small cities’ worth of fans? Moreover, their success is at least somewhat dependent on an ability to connect with others; to seem like someone worth paying attention to. It’s difficult to imagine anyone more effective at raising awareness than the modern celebrity.
Celebrities fill a less-than-clear niche in our world. They sell us clothing, make-up, whiskey; they offer wireless internet and restaurants. We see the interiors of their homes, watch as they pull suspiciously branded items from their purses before a team of cameras. They tower on billboards behind perfumes and corporations, for their own movies and music. I worry that when they also become responsible for selling us on politics and morality, celebrity culture will have gone too far.
The idea that the eyes and respect of the public makes a celebrity the perfect candidate for this role seems to be an immensely optimistic one. In my view, it is more persuasively presented as this: Celebrities are in a unique position, with well-amplified voices that reach wide audiences prone to giving their words greater-than-average weight. Yet there is no reason this demographic’s opinions would have correspondingly greater-than-average wisdom, or accuracy.
A public figure, in the entertainment industry in particular, should never be expected to say more than what will preserve their career. This is neither an insult nor a critique; their profession and livelihood are dependent on public perception. In an era where cancel culture is rampant and unpredictable, to what degree is any public figure — at least, any who hopes to progress professionally — free to take risks for the sake of their principles? Surely nobody whose speech must be tailored in such a way should be consulted on complex matters that affect real people.
Then again, if their responses are tailored for the best possible reception, maybe their true opinions don’t matter, so long as their statement makes positive change. In that situation, though, what are we really asking for? The request for comment seems to want a certain response, a ‘correct’ answer that presumably is expected to correspond with the opinion of the person asking for it. If we don’t know the celebrity personally, have no sense of their moral compass and don’t know whether they’re even informed, what are we asking for? If it is just to raise awareness, to impartially tell the public that they ought to be informing themselves on some topic, I see no harm. But how can they be expected to take a side?
In 2020, Vanessa Hudgens offered her take on the COVID-19 pandemic stretching into the summer — she said it sounded wrong, and “even if everybody gets it … like yeah, people are going to die, which is terrible. But, like, inevitable?” She responded to backlash, encouraging her followers to quarantine and saying she herself was doing so.
I don’t mean to attack her for the old statement, and maybe her intention really wasn’t to belittle precautions taken to prevent loss of life. I do, however, think the situation well illustrates the issue at hand. It would be unreasonable to expect Hudgens, whose chosen career does not require it, to be well-informed about the mechanisms and consequences of a pandemic. Yet, how many people heard her potentially reckless take?
How widely, if at all, such statements are seriously considered, I don’t know; but I believe just putting them out there before so large an audience is dangerous. Everybody makes errors in judgment; we all find ourselves misinformed at one time or another, but most of us don’t have throngs of fans taking up our every word.
Maybe none of that is the point. Maybe the whole idea is that the request for comment itself draws attention to an issue, and if the celebrity does put out a polished, pre-approved statement, or wears a small pin on some red carpet, it lends their voice and audience to others who lack these things.
I don’t believe, however, that by virtue of having a public platform, these figures have committed themselves to the task of speaking up about nuanced issues. As actors, singers and entertainers they owe us nothing more than the specific product of the career they’ve pursued. In most cases, I think they have a responsibility to not speak up when their influence does not match their qualifications. And in situations where they feel morally compelled to say something, surely they have the right to do so, but I think we as their audience have an obligation to take their words with a grain of salt.
Raising awareness about issues in which you believe is admirable. Pursuing statements from every celebrity, though, risks a precedent that this realm of political commentary is one in which they necessarily belong. That, I think, seems okay only so long as there is a clear socially acceptable response, one which a PR team’s studied comment will adhere to; but what happens when it’s more complex, when the right answer is murky? These are not the people responsible for teaching us about nuanced conflict, and they never should be.
Rye Blizzard
Rye Blizzard is a member of the Class of 2027 in the College of Arts and Sciences. She is a staff writer for the Arts & Culture department and can be reached at rab538@cornell.edu.
