This article is written by a student writer from the Her Campus at Waterloo chapter.
With great power comes great responsibility. Right?
Pop star Chappell Roan has been drumming up controversy lately due, in part, to comments she made regarding the upcoming American presidential election. Or, maybe it was what she didn’t say. In a Guardian article published last month, Chappell shared that she doesn’t “feel pressured to endorse” Kamala Harris, Donald Trump, or any political candidate, saying “there’s problems on both sides”. This is what caused a commotion, what many fans referred to as an equivocation between the two parties and candidates. As many have pointed out, there are indeed many problems in both parties and candidates, however, the threat that a Trump presidency poses to minority rights across the country is far greater. But the quote used in the article doesn’t recognize this, which can send a harmful message.
In media, “false balance” or “both sidesism” refers to journalistic bias in which opposing viewpoints are presented as being more balanced than they really are. In this case, Chappell’s comment has been seen as presenting Harris and Trump as equally problematic, which can suggest to voters that Trump and his ideologies may be less dangerous. But, I would infer that Chappell probably doesn’t actually believe that these candidates are equally problematic. Despite her clear support of the LGBTQ+ community as a lesbian herself, and despite the fact that in the Guardian article, she says the topic most important to her this election is trans rights, fans took to social media criticizing this “both sides” quote and urging Chappell to do better to advocate for the LGBTQ+ community. But, Chappell is right. While the idea of another Trump term is terrifying, we cannot ignore problems within the Democratic Party. For example, the quote in question is prefaced in the article by a description of Chappell refusing to perform at a Pride event at the White House because of the Biden administration’s ongoing partnership and funding of Israel and its failure to recognize its genocide of Palestinian people. This, and many other issues, can’t be ignored with the idea that ‘at least Harris is better than Trump’, and I believe that was the intention behind the comment. Chappell’s encouraging her fans to “use [their] critical thinking skills”. If we fail to see the problems with the party we vote for, we fail to truly hold our politicians accountable.
The situation had me and my friends rehashing a debate we’ve had many times before: Must celebrities use their platforms to talk about important social and political issues? If so, in what capacity? Or, is it unfair, unreasonable, or even harmful to expect them to do so? Despite having this conversation many times, I have yet to land on a definitive opinion (I know, this is rare for me). This is a complicated issue, so let’s talk about it.
“If you have a platform and you have people’s ear, if you have their attention, how dare you not [speak up about political or social issues]? It is a responsibility that you have”
That’s a quote from Brittany Broski’s podcast, The Broski Report, during an episode in which she discusses the importance of celebrities and influencers using their platforms to speak on what’s right. Ironically, months later, Brittany found herself in controversy after a video leaked of her complaining about the “dystopian universe” she finds herself in, where people expect her to “address the situation in the Middle East”. What she’s referring to is the ongoing genocide of Palestinian people by the Israeli government, and how many are calling on their favourite actors, singers and influencers to share important information and resources with their audiences. I’ll get back to Brittany’s controversy in a moment, but her first quote is an important one. Celebrities have huge platforms and can reach thousands, even millions, of people with a single post. They therefore have the ability to play an important role in sharing resources with their audience and raising awareness about a particular issue.
Take Taylor Swift for example. After encouraging her fans to register to vote in 2018, registration spiked. Or look at Ariana Grande. The Palestine Children’s relief fund saw $20,000 in donations following her posting a donation link on her Instagram story, which is why I find it insulting when celebrities and their fans suggest that their actions won’t have an impact on a particular social issue. We’re smarter than that. The impact they can have is massive. So they should use their platforms to talk about these issues. Right?
Well, I don’t think it’s as simple as that. If I were to become famous tomorrow, I’d like to think that I would use my platform to raise awareness about all kinds of different issues, to platform the voices of those who society typically ignores. If I’m honest, it would probably be scary to do so. But I think that would be something I would have to get over in order to do what is right. When Brittany Broski complained about being looked to for commentary on social and political issues, she did have a point. It would be unfair and frankly dangerous to look to celebrities who are not experts on a given topic for guidance or analyses. Misinformation can be spread this way. And I think what Brittany Broski failed to realize is this: The expectation should not be that celebrities should become experts (because seriously, no one has ever shaped their opinions about Palestine based on what Brittany Broski thinks). Instead, the expectation should be that as individuals with the ability to reach large amounts of people, they could, and some would argue should, share information and resources from experts and those with lived experiences. I would not expect my favourite singer to become an expert on complex topics like these ones. I would, however, think that they were using their platform and privilege in a positive way if they shared educational resources or platformed the voices of smaller creators in order to spread their messages. And despite the fact that I do believe it’s unreasonable, and again, dangerous, to expect celebrities to become authorities on every single political and social issue on the planet, I do believe that it is their responsibility, as it is all of our responsibilities, to learn about what is happening in the world around us and advocate for the marginalized. I find it unfair to give celebrities a pass on this social responsibility, especially because I think the power they yield to create change and influence their audiences is immense. Britanny Broski complained about her audience asking her to use her platform to raise awareness about the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, ignoring her privilege of having to simply learn from afar about the oppression and violence that others are living through on a daily basis.
Artists should not be seen as authorities on issues. Unless of course, they are. Artists can and do share their own lived experiences, for example in the way Quannah Chasinghorse platforms Land Back initiatives, information on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Two Spirit individuals, and cultural appropriation as an Indigenous woman. She and others who do the same should be seen as authorities because they are. Again, no one is looking to Brittanny Broski as an expert on those issues. But public figures like her hold immense power to platform the voices and experiences of others, and I think this is an incredibly positive and significant use of their privileges. Take Nicola Coughlan for example, the Bridgerton actor who has been advocating for Palestine in interviews. She is not an expert and people don’t treat her like one, but she is platforming the voices and experiences of others. This, I believe, is how celebrities can positively use their platforms for change. But then, must they?
I want to say yes. With the privilege of a platform perhaps comes a moral responsibility to use it in a positive way. But then I run into the issue of virtue-signalling. Sometimes, it feels like the internet is operating with a checklist of which celebrities have commented about which issue, and if they haven’t, it is assumed they agree with what the internet deems the “wrong” side. And I worry this will create an expectation that all celebrities must discuss on their platforms every single social and political issue around the world in order to be seen as “good”. In other words, I worry that we will force celebrities to virtue-signal, or express views that align with popular moral values in order to be seen as a good person, rather than actually educating themselves and their audiences because they truly care. Brittanny Broski’s comment shows how she considers the requests by her fans to share resources on her platform to be something she has to complete to show she is moral and remain un-canceled, rather than caring to actually learn about the experiences of others. These demonstrations of morality are not helpful in minority groups’ fights for justice. Instead, they centre the rich celebrity who is trying to look woke. This is why I worry about making a totalizing statement like: “celebrities must talk about social issues”. Because that cannot be what it is for us as consumers and fans. It cannot just be about checking a box, making sure our favs are in line with our ideas and values and moving on. If we’re going to have an expectation, it has to be of more.
The expectation for Chappell to endorse Harris is an example of this. We want Chappell to say the words “I endorse Harris” so that we can check off a box. We are far less concerned with her actually demonstrating her beliefs through her actions. And so, we ignore her support for women’s rights, trans rights, her platforming of local drag artists at her shows, and her refusal to perform at the White House. Our expectation is for Chappell to say the words and move on, without any action. But she did the actions without the words we wanted to hear, and we’re stumped.
In these kinds of discussions, I also often hear arguments about how these individuals are artists and we shouldn’t expect them to enter into politics. But, in the words of Hozier, “music is political no matter what”. And I would extend this quote to include all art, because all art exists within and comments in some way on a political society, one that is riddled with inequalities. Art cannot be apolitical. And the ability to view politics as a sphere one can step in and out of is to experience a privileged world in which your reality is not impacted by political decisions. For some, politics cannot be ignored because personhood and human rights are on the line, like trans rights as Chappell mentioned. And again, as Hozier said, “solidarity costs nothing”. Standing beside and amplifying the voices of marginalized groups is a powerful way for celebrities, and us, to enact social change.
I guess my answer is still murky. On the one hand, celebrities have massive platforms and can use them to raise awareness about social and political issues around the world. I think this would be a good thing. But on the other hand, this growing expectation for them to do so can be dangerous and encourage performative actions. Social media is constantly changing, and I’m sure my opinions will change and become even more complicated as time goes on. I do know that language and word choice is important, especially online. So while Chappell Roan could have chosen better words, I think the message she tried to convey is an important one. Let’s continue to hold our politicians accountable. I’ll get back to you about the whole celebrity thing.