Celebrity activism

Abstract

Identifying as an ‘activist’ is akin to saying ‘I am an artist’, in that it is a foundational identity. The unspoken assumption is that an activist must ‘live the issue’ and demonstrate remorseless dedication via a comprehensive ‘alignment between personal identity and collective identity’ (Bobel, 2007). It generally refers to volunteer and professional campaigners, theorists, and analysts who oppose any or all of racism, misogyny, bigotry, war, economic inequality, and climate change. From Los Angeles to London, hipsters and the not-so-hip alike introduce themselves as ‘activists’. Their means of financial support and socio-cultural theories and practices are generally left undisclosed by this term, but it is understood axiomatically that they are not nationalistic, militaristic, sexist, or skeptical about climate change, and participate in progressive social movements. Celebrities are rather different from such common-or-garden activists. They are famous for being famous; creatures of marketing and carefully-directed gossip – fabulations of the culture industries. Activism is generally a hobby and a branding for them, rather than a thoroughgoing self-definition. In Hollywood, for example, agents select causes with which their charges might associate, based on image and status. An ‘A-lister’ is connected to different issues from someone trying to break through or fallen from the heights; straight men may be articulated to different organizations from feminist women. What do we find if we look at the main talent agencies? UTA’s ‘Culture and Leadership Division’ is dedicated to ‘thought leadership’ and ‘social impact’ (https://www.unitedtalent.com/ news/darnell-strom-to-lead-uta-culture-and-leadership/), while the ‘Politics department’ at ICM (currently subject to a potential merger with CAA) ‘works to form the connective tissue between talent and the political landscape by cultivating and seeking out opportunities that support and amplify what our clients are most passionate about.’ This is because ‘Creativity has the power to spark change’ (https://www.icmpartners.com/icm-politics/). CAA promises ‘limitless opportunities’ to ‘thought leaders who shape popular culture’ (https://www.caa.com/ about-us) and can ‘ignite and champion efforts to improve the world around us... to create positive social change,’ with environmentalism on the list (https://www.caa.com/socialresponsibility). WME lays claim to ‘one of the largest cultural footprints on Earth,’ enabling it to ‘influence perception and frame collective understanding... to shape and promote a better world’ through ‘Cause Consulting’ (https://www.wmeagency.com/responsibility/). Throughout, service to talent of course remains a lodestone – in this instance ‘advising clients in their philanthropic, social responsibility, and cause-making endeavors’ (https:// www.caa.com/social-impact). These activities are denounced by reactionaries as the left’s ‘grip on Hollywood’ (Ng, 2021). But here’s the deal – and it’s perfectly ordinary: whereas full-time activists are organic intellectuals of left and right, celebrities are organic intellectuals curated within the culture industries. Gramsci maintained that each social group creates ‘one or more strata of intellectuals which give it homogeneity and an awareness of its own function not only in the economic but also in the social and political fields’ (1978, p. 5). The ‘‘organic’ intellectuals which every new class creates alongside itself and elaborates in the course of its development’ (6) assist