RICHEY, L BUDABIN, A. Celebrities in International Affairs

Celebrities in International Affairs
Oxford Handbooks Online

Lisa Ann Richey and Alexandra Budabin
Subject: Political Science, International Relations, Political Theory
Online Publication Date: Apr 2016 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935307.013.3
Abstract and Keywords
Celebrity engagement in global “helping” is not a simple matter of highly photogenic

caring for needy others across borders; it is a complex relationship of power that often
produces contradictory functions in relation to the goals of humanitarianism,
development, and advocacy. This article argues that celebrities are acting as other elite
actors in international affairs: investing considerable capital into processes that are
highly political. It traces the emergence and practices of the elite politics of celebrities in
North-South relations, an evolution made possible by recent changes in aid practices,
media, and NGOs, then considers exemplary cases of Angelina Jolie in Burma, Ben Affleck
in the Democractic Republic of Congo, and Madonna in Malawi. These celebrity practices
as diplomats, experts, and humanitarians in international affairs illustrate the diverse and
contradictory forms of engagement by celebrity “helpers” in North-South relations.
Keywords: humanitarianism, celebrity, international affairs, North-South relations, development, NGOs, media,
Third World, aid practices, elite politics
Page 1 of 22
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
date: 22 February 2018

Introduction
Celebrities are now considered influential actors in international affairs, particularly in
the shaping of North-South relations. The high visibility presence and varying
humanitarian activities of celebrities have become topics of considerable debate in
academic circles and mainstream media. Their presence is lauded for drawing extensive
media attention and building popular support, yet derided for promoting superficial and
misguided interventions across borders. Littler (2008) used the term “global do-gooding”
to describe a particular type of celebrity response to suffering at a distance—one that
“generates a lot of hype and PR but is relatively insignificant in relation to international
and governmental policy” (240). However, the actual practices of celebrities are quite
diverse and function at multiple levels. Instead of relative insignificance, celebrities as
elite actors have varied and even contradictory impacts on the politics and processes of
helping as part of North-South relations. In the South celebrities perform site visits,
establish development organizations, serve international governmental organizations, and
behave as “disaster tourists.” In the North they act as witnesses, ambassadors, fund-
raisers, and activists. While celebrities have been involved in humanitarianism for
decades, academic scholarship has only recently begun to take them seriously for their
ability to reach popular and elite audiences—building authority, legitimacy, and influence
—and to impact local and global processes of governance. “Do-gooding” works across
public-private divides, and our empirical examples suggest that it interacts in interesting
ways with Western foreign policymaking (e.g., Ben Affleck’s congressional appearances in
the United States), global governance (e.g., Angelina Jolie’s work for the United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees with Burmese refugees), and local governmental policy
(e.g., the use of Madonna’s projects in Malawian political debates). The study of celebrity
in international affairs can bring into focus the debates over agenda setting and the
conflicts over the practices of transnational politics that constitute the elite political
arena of North-South relations with which celebrities themselves must engage.
We argue that celebrity politics are elite politics, and as such they offer all of the
opportunities of resources, both financial and attention—and all the pitfalls of
undemocratic agenda setting. This includes supporting the interests of Western, typically
business, elites (see Brockington 2014b), while limiting the participation of the “others”
they are supposed to be “helping” with their “do-gooding” (Littler 2008). In international
fora and decision-making venues, celebrities are found speaking on behalf of publics in
the Global South to politicians, donors, and corporate sponsors. To be sure, the field of
international affairs has never been a realm of mass politics but tended toward the elite,
business, and capital-possessing interests long before celebrities entered the scene.
Gaining a meaningful understanding of celebrities as elite actors with the ability to shape
North-South relations requires a grounded, case-by case study to provide the empirical
evidence for successful theory building about whether they can open up space for more
Page 2 of 22

democratic participation by amplifying the voices of “other” actors who are typically left
unheard in the negotiations of international affairs.
This article traces the emergence and practices of celebrities as diplomats, experts, and
humanitarians in the arena of North-South “helping,” an evolution made possible by
recent changes in aid practices, media, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).
Celebrities are acting as other elite actors in international affairs, investing considerable
capital, both material and symbolic, in processes that are highly political, typically in the
politics of “others” through North-South relations. Driessens (2013) draws on Bourdieu’s
field theory to argue that celebrity is not actually a mere subset of symbolic capital, but
constitutes a distinct form of celebrity capital that is based on “recurrent media
representations or accumulated media visibility” (550). Reflecting on the social theory of
celebrity, in which “celebrity is primarily a matter of the accumulation and distribution of
attention” (van Krieken 2012, 54), Driessens argues that celebrity capital works like other
fungible capitals and can move across different fields as well. His claim is that celebrity
capital “can be converted into economic capital as money (e.g., through merchandising),
into social capital as valuable contacts (e.g., through increased access to previously
closed networks), into symbolic capital as recognition (e.g., when one’s fame is
recognized in a specific social field) or into political capital as political power (e.g., by
being an elected official)” (2013, 555). Here we consider how celebrities as elite actors
are able to convert their capital into economic, political, and social resources that are
allocated in support of their pet causes and shape North-South relations.
Just as celebrity constitutes a particular kind of fungible capital, it also wields various
forms of power. Celebrities are legitimate actors in North-South “helping” with the
expectation of exerting a productive, cooperative “power with” local recipients and
stakeholders, yet the power they wield reinforces global and sometimes local power
elites. While we will not repeat the in-depth theoretical discussion of what kind of power
the celebrity itself wields in North-South “helping,” as is the focus in Partzsch (2015), the
main argument is useful for thinking about the power of celebrities in international
affairs. Partzsch (2015) argues that celebrity engagement could be considered as either a
“power over” others in the Weberian sense of power (coercion and manipulation), or as a
“power with” in the Arendtian sense (cooperation and learning). She concludes that while
celebrity activism is depicted in the media as “power with,” as the celebrities are
imagined as “do-gooders who act in the common good” (Partzsch 2015, 181), a
comparison of celebrity power suggests that they are typically exerting “power over” that
does not reflect any consensus across stakeholders and instead reinforces the advantage
of powerful interests. We use Partzsch’s (2015) theorizing of celebrity power and present
exemplary cases of celebrity practices in international affairs as diplomats, experts, and
humanitarians that demonstrate this complex contradiction in power.
Some of the literature on celebrity do-gooding focuses on the celebrity figure as a

mobilizing device, raising awareness and funds from the mass public to connect Northern
publics with causes in the Global South. For example, supporters of celebrities as
international actors, like Cooper (2008a, 2008b), suggest that celebrities can be an
Page 3 of 22

innovative, positive force in “changing the world” by forging new links across contexts.
However, other contemporary scholarship examining the empirical practices of celebrity
engagement asserts that populist celebrity advocacy marks disengagement between the
public and politics across North and South. Celebrity advocacy, argues Brockington
(2014a), is the terrain of elites in the North, in spite of popular misconceptions that
celebrities are successful because of their appeal to “the people.” Critics like Littler
(2008) and Kapoor (2013) argue that celebrities appeal to “the people” by playing with
the humanitarian needs of “others”—effectively selling the poor for profit in global
capitalist relations—making celebrity practices inherently destructive for the South.
Thus, we may question whether these world-changing forces are new or positive.
Social theorists like van Krieken (2012) chart convincingly that celebrity politics is
nothing new, and that the history of celebrity engagement in North-South relations runs
alongside “development” and the drive toward “modernity,” intimately linked with
colonial logics. Therefore, we might assume that contemporary celebrity and North-South
relations remain intertwined with both the constructive forces of “helping” and the
destructive relations of exploitation. This article focuses on the figure of the celebrity as
constituting an intellectual space where concepts of authenticity, accessibility, agenda
setting, popularity, and brand can also be interrogated. These concepts lead to the
following questions: How do we make “celebrity” a theoretical concept that helps us to
understand something about the constitution of international affairs? How does looking at
celebrity influence our understanding of “traditional” perspectives on agenda setting and
elites, practices of North-South relations, and politics across borders? Is do-gooding a
mark of authenticity of the “real” person behind the persona, and if so, why are some
humanitarian actions more sincere than others? How do celebrities wield their capital to
challenge or reinforce elite politics in their engagement with humanitarianism? Do
celebrity diplomacy, expertise, and humanitarianism increase accessibility for nonexpert
publics? Is humanitarianism part of a celebrity brand that helps to sell something more
effectively?
The Emergence and Practices of Celebrities in

International Affairs: Diplomats, Experts, and
Humanitarians
Historically, the ways in which celebrities have engaged in humanitarianism are
numerous: raising money for charity, visiting with stakeholders and victims, and lobbying.
Celebrities have long provided material benefits to international organizations and
private charities. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) began its program of
involving celebrities as goodwill ambassadors in the 1950s starting with American actor
Danny Kaye; other famous UNICEF goodwill ambassadors are Audrey Hepburn, Liv
Ullman, and Mia Farrow (Wheeler 2011). Celebrities became further engaged with the
Page 4 of 22

United Nations under UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, who expanded the program and
wanted goodwill ambassadors to promote a positive view of the organization (Cooper
2008b). In this period celebrities moved beyond product endorsement and movie
promotions to loftier ambitions based on ideas of “self-importance”: “whereas rock stars,
actors, or models once had influence without legitimate, governmental power, [in recent
decades] they assumed a kind of moral authority once associated with sages or
charismatic leaders” (Cashmore 2006, 218). With their intimate associations with
institutions of global governance, celebrities became immersed in the transnational
politics of humanitarianism, aid, and international development. Beginning from this early
history, celebrities have become recognized for acting as diplomats, experts, and
humanitarians, reflecting the expanded scope of practices and sites of engagement.
Celebrity Diplomats
Recent examples, such as Sharon Stone at Davos and George Clooney at the United
Nations, illustrate how celebrities are edging deeper into elite spheres of global
governance to become envoys for particular causes. These “celebrity diplomats” are
individuals with “ample communication skills a sense of mission, and some global reach”
who “enter into the official diplomatic world and operate through a matrix of complex
relationships with state officials” (Cooper 2008b, 7). This small group of figures incudes
celebrities from the North like Bob Geldof, Bono, and Angelina Jolie, who have used their
broad cultural appeal to gain access to rarefied spaces on the international stage like the
United Nations, the White House, 10 Downing Street, and Davos to discuss Third World
debt, poverty, and refugees. As “celebrity diplomats,” celebrities have moved diplomacy
and global governance into more prolific and interactive engagement in the mainstream
media. In translating their celebrity capital into political capital, these celebrities “have
the power to frame issues in a manner that attracts visibility and new channels of
communication at the mass as well as the elite levels” (Cooper 2008b, 7). Celebrities also
bring the possibility of adopting different tones; their messaging can be “cast in
colloquial and sometimes markedly undiplomatic language” (Cooper 2008a, 2). Their
dominating presence at the elite levels of global governance and pretexts of visionary
leadership have the potential to shape political agendas; “celebrities have become
interlocutors and spokespeople for humanitarianism and, as such, are reconfiguring
international development agendas in new and often unforeseen ways” (Mostafanezhad
2013, 486). With their ability to mix official and unofficial mechanisms of engagement,
celebrity diplomats can either adhere to traditional forms of diplomatic etiquette or use
their global stages to be louder advocates for their causes. But their entrance into an elite
world will depend on the goodwill and invitation of elite allies, an example of celebrity
engagement that depends on ‘“power over” elite allies rather than channeling challenges
to the global world order based on the will of the wider public.
Celebrity Experts in North-South Relations
Page 5 of 22

Facing disenchantment with policymakers and dry political talk, conventional wisdom
regards the public as turning to celebrity figures to parse complex issues and channel
their interests. Celebrity involvement as “experts” has been linked to numerous issues
and campaigns, in particular, those related to humanitarianism in Africa. This “expertise”
is gained from celebrity junkets, on which cameras follow celebrities on tours of refugee
camps, slums, and conflict zones, highlighting the “tragedy” of Africa. As Abrahamsen
(2012) argues, celebrity junkets have become more frequent because affect has become
increasingly important for understanding how Africa is represented within a global
culture of consumption, where celebrities, their brands, and Africa are all part of an
emotional experience: “The celebrity is a different kind of expert, whose knowledge is not
derived from numbers, deduction, or semi-structured interviews, but from ‘feeling the
pain’ of the poor and from offering an emotional connection to the subjects of
development” (Abrahamsen 2012, 141). With the emotional pull of affect coupled with
deeper engagement with specific issues, celebrities have supplanted experts in mediating
the public’s relationship with the complexity of Africa. As Brockington (2012) points out,
“claims made on the basis of empathy with the audience, may in fact be read in terms of
intellectual expertise, as may claims made on the basis of experience” (20). Therefore,
relying on celebrities as guides to North-South relations is risky; celebrity capital is being
converted into symbolic capital extending far beyond the field in which the celebrity is
recognized as holding expertise. Critically, a celebrity “expert” with the potential for
influence is in danger of reproducing colonial and neoliberal tropes and sustaining
popular but ineffective solutions.
While recent research suggests that celebrities do not, in fact, sustain media coverage for
advocacy (Thrall et al. 2008, 363) and do not engage well with much of the public
(Brockington 2014b), these paradoxes do not stop NGOs and decision-makers from
investing time and energy in cultivating celebrities as experts.
Page 6 of 22

Celebrity Humanitarians
The term “celebrity humanitarianism” encompasses the expanding field of celebritized

forms of global humanitarianism and charity work (Kapoor 2013). The past few years
have seen a proliferation of celebrity humanitarians appearing in productions of North-
South relations, doing “good” on transnational terrain (de Waal 2008; Hood 2010). A
theoretical critique of celebrity humanitarianism is provided in a book by Kapoor (2013),
who claims that celebrity legitimates and promotes neoliberal capitalism and global
inequality. This polemic draws heavily from the theories of Žižek to argue that celebrity
humanitarianism is a moral spectacle that entwines frenetic development NGOs, big
business, and sexy stars. Kapoor illustrates how celebrities’ involvement in international
development advances the celebrity brand and contributes to a “postdemocratic” political
landscape managed by unaccountable elites. The term “postdemocratic” characterizes
politics in Western countries, where public participation is dependent on “top-down
publicity campaigns” that are directed by political elites, often acting in concert with
corporate entities (Crouch 2004, 19–20). Brockington argues that the figure of celebrity
has gained a foothold, especially among humanitarian NGOs, as “part of the performance
and display of elite-dominated post-democracies” (2014a, 37). This explains the
entrenchment of celebrities in transnational networks that include the public, corporate
interests, and the media; in this way, celebrity capital is being translated into economic
capital for a coterie of elite actors, another example of “power over.” The presence of
celebrity humanitarians raises the concern that their practices obfuscate power and
privilege, strengthen top-down political processes, and close down disagreement and
conflict without popular input (Kapoor 2013, 37). In a more recent iteration, celebrities
such as Bono, Madonna, Ben Affleck, and Sean Penn have established their own
development organizations, giving them a firmer foundation for engaging in humanitarian
activities in the Global South, but also reflecting the deep financial resources that
celebrities have access to. Thus, as embodiments of capital, celebrity humanitarians can
be seen to benefit from and perpetuate the “postdemocratic order.”
Analytical Framework from Contemporary Academic Debates
Celebrities are now an increasingly studied topic on their own terms, with a history of
critical concern about the relationship between celebrities and politics that Wheeler
dates back to the German sociologist Leo Lowenthal’s (1944) critique of the replacement
of “idols of production,” such as politicians, with “idols of consumption,” such as film
stars (Wheeler 2013, 1). Holmes and Redmond specify that the aims of celebrity studies
are “to defamiliarize the everyday, and to make apparent the cultural politics and power
relations which sit at the center of the ‘taken for granted’” (2010, 3). In particular,
political scientists must take up this call to “defamiliarize” celebrities with whom many
Western media consumers have become saturated—such as Ben Affleck, Madonna, or
Page 7 of 22

Angelina Jolie—in order to make apparent the politics and power relations constituting
important interactions in international affairs.
This article relies on an analytical framework to explore celebrities as influential

transnational actors by examining their engagement with elite politics located in and
across the global South and the donor North. The framework is linked to three relevant
literatures: (1) the literature on celebrities and representation of “others” (particularly
from media and communications studies, cultural studies, and anthropology); (2) the
interdisciplinary literature on aid celebrities (Richey and Ponte 2011) (primarily
international development studies and geography); and (3) the emerging literature on
new actors and alliances in North-South relations (drawing on political science,
international relations, and global studies). Scholarship on celebrity do-gooding in
transnational contexts of humanitarianism, development, and diplomacy has been
blossoming in diverse specialist and interdisciplinary journals within these three research
categories (Brockington 2014a; Chouliaraki 2006, 2013; Dieter and Kumar 2008;
Goodman and Barnes 2011; Huliaras and Tzifakis 2010; Littler 2011; Müller 2013; Repo
and Yrjölä 2011; Scott 2015; Wheeler 2013). The body of this work seeks to untangle
developments in celebrity practices within a context of shifting dynamics between new
actors and alliances in aid and global governance institutions of humanitarianism.
Page 8 of 22

Celebrity and Representing the “Other”

Driessens provides a literature review mapping definitions of celebrity, in which “the
focus is on celebrity as a social category that captures a position of well-knownness of an
individual, however little time it lasts and regardless of the ways it was attained” (2013,
545). Boltanski and Thévenot (1991) define “celebrity” as a state of superiority in a world
where opinion is the defining instrument for measuring different orders of “greatness.” In
their approach, being a celebrity is characterized by having a widespread reputation,
being recognized in public, being visible, having success, being distinguished, and having
opinion leaders, journalists and media as your testimonials. While resembling in many
ways other forms of charismatic leadership, celebrity differs because of its dependence
on social distance and its projection through the media (see the classic discussion in
Weber 1968).
Bestowing the power of intercession on celebrities who act between “the people” and
“the system” has been a common way of explaining why the mechanism of celebrity is
influential for various audiences. A classic text on “the powerless elite” concludes that
celebrities are “a transitional phenomenon that identifies the need of the general
community for an avenue through which to discuss issues of morality … that are
insufficiently or ineffectively handled in the rational sphere of evaluating political power
elites” (Alberoni 1972, cited in Marshall 1997, 16). As the paradigms of “people we know
so well” who are simultaneously “just like us” and “exemplary,” celebrities have become
proxy philanthropists, statesmen, executives, and healers (Marks and Fischer 2002). As
Duncombe has illustrated, “The ‘humble roots and common tastes’ celebrity stories not
only make this contemporary Pantheon of Gods acceptable to a democratic audience, but
they also hold out the promise that this can happen to you” (2007, 108). Celebrities are
paradoxically both extraordinary and “ordinary people” (as described in the classic Dyer
1979). Yet the “popular attraction to celebrity fantasies points up to a troubling popular
fantasy: life without consequence” (Duncombe 2007, 120).
Celebrity can be read as a performance between the celebrity as benefactor and northern
publics for whom the celebrity functions as a proxy philanthropist. Chouliaraki (2013)
argues that contemporary humanitarianism is under pressure from economic, political,
and technological transformations that have significantly altered the possibilities for
global solidarity. She shows how international aid has become instrumentalized as
international organizations and NGOs compete for market share and donor funding, while
scholars focus on administrative policy rather than critical, normative theory.
Simultaneously, argues Chouliaraki (2013), the grand narratives of solidarity have been
replaced by individualist projects. This is linked to changes in technology and new media
forms in which audiences in the North have become both producers and consumers of
public communication that both represents and obfuscates the lives of distant “others”
without their consent or input. Solidarity is framed as a problem of communication, and
humanitarianism as performance. In documenting changes in humanitarian
communication over the past four decades, Chouliaraki (2013) argues that we have
Page 9 of 22

moved into the “post-humanitarian” age, in which solidarity is driven by neoliberal logics
of consumption and utilitarianism and doing good for “others” depends on doing well for
yourself. As Chouliaraki describes, celebrities are at the forefront of this societal shift:
The tearful celebrity, the rock concert, the Twitter hype and the graphic attention
are … prototypical performances of post-humanitarianism which limit our
resources for reflecting upon human vulnerability as a political problem of
injustice and minimizes our capacity of empathy with vulnerable others as others
with their own humanity. (2013, 187)
The book also emphasizes that humanitarian communication in new media favors partial,
personal readings as opposed to more objective, shared interpretations of humanitarian
problems, and consequently is less effective at integrating audiences and providing a
shared foundation for collective action (Chouliaraki 2013). Thus, celebrity engagement in
humanitarianism would provide the possibility of vicariously participating in the caring
activities of our favorite celebrity, while disengaging from the consequential activity of
what “really” happens in international development or humanitarianism on the ground.
Aid Celebrities
The celebrity labels used above—humanitarian, diplomat, and expert—signal the variety
of practices and therefore growing influence of celebrities in political processes that
shape North-South relations. Termed “aid celebrities” (Richey and Ponte 2008), the
actors involved in the celebritization of humanitarian aid have received considerable
critique from scholars in development studies and geography. Critically, the aid celebrity
presence signals a concentration of elite power that has come to characterize the
neoliberal landscape.
Recent critical books have taken on aid celebrity interventions in North-South relations.
Mapping the field of empirically grounded work on celebrity and development,
Brockington (2014a) focuses exclusively on celebrity advocacy and lobbying in
international development in the United Kingdom. He examines its history, relationships,
consequences, wider contexts, and implications, arguing that celebrity advocacy signals a
new aspect of elite rule in which corporations, politicians, and the NGO community have
begun to shift agendas to accommodate aid celebrities. A pragmatic conclusion suggests
that if development is to better meet the needs of its many stakeholders and recipients, it
must negotiate within this new terrain of celebritized relationships. Contributions to
Richey (2015) provide new empirical material from case studies to argue that celebrities
function as new transnational humanitarian actors in North–South relations, on the basis
of what they are actually doing in both North and South. The book demonstrates how
little scholarly attention has been paid to the Global South, either as a place where
celebrities intervene in existing politics and social processes, or as the generator of
celebrities engaged in “do-gooding.”
North–South Relations
Page 10 of 22

Humanitarianism, with or without celebrities, is being conceptually debated, understood,

and reworked through a large and diverse academic literature that for the most part is
not covered in this brief article (for a selected overview, see Ticktin 2014; Barnett 2011;
Fassin 2012; and Waters 2001). International relations scholars use “humanitarianism”
with a specific historical reference to the 1864 Geneva Convention’s recognition of an
international law of humanitarian principles to govern the moral practice of war. Modern
forms of humanitarianism came into being in the post–World War II era establishment of
the United Nations and the UN Convention on Refugees. As suggested by the title “The
Problems with Humanitarianism,” Belloni (2007) argues that intervention in the domestic
affairs of states on the grounds of a shared humanity serves to support the interests of
powerful elites in international affairs and to undermine the moral basis of human rights
on which this intervention is predicated. The terrain of intervention in humanitarian
causes is rapidly changing, with the engagement of new actors, relations, and alliances
across geographical, financial, and political distances. But these changes occur in in a
field that is under considerable scrutiny for the ways that humanitarianism is “deeply
rooted in the colonial beginnings of modernity” (van Krieken 2015, 205), and alongside
long-established socioeconomic and political power relations. Therefore, critical
scholarship must question the “optimists” (described in Chouliaraki 2013) who lead us to
believe that globalization and mediatization are permeating all corners of the globe and
“networking” everyone, while leaving isolation, misunderstanding, and callousness as
part of a “pre-humanitarian” past (for a useful overview see Robertson 2015). Celebrity
power “is mainly exercised invisibly” and relies on spiritual and emotional (see Partzsch
2015, 12), rather than rational, critical, or questioning, engagements.
To analyze the role of celebrities in international affairs, we focus on “North–South

relations.” The traditional meaning of the term of course draws from political science
descriptions of the relationships that emerged at the end of World War II and during
decolonization. Its common usage dates back to the 1970s, when the North, the “wealthy,
industrialized nations of the non-communist world,” aligned diplomatically against the
“countries of the so-called developing world” in the South (Hansen 1980). While
remaining a contested term, North–South relations came to be used commonly in
describing trade relations, security policy, diplomacy, development aid, capital flows, or
economic integration between states or groups of states. Today it is used to capture
differences at multiple levels (from global flows to local communities) and to highlight
relationships that are neither spatial nor geographical. There is no “North” as an
empirical place; rather, “North” endures as a position in a hierarchy between North and
South, across levels and geographies, but particularly in the global economy and
institutions of global governance.
Our case review considers celebrity practices in “humanitarianism” or “do-gooding”

under the marker “North–South relations.” This is a deliberate choice to connect
contemporary celebrity engagement to the past forms of North–South linkage, from
slavery and empire to 1970s development as modernization (stemming from the classical
Rostowian 1960 “stages of economic growth”) (see also Van Krieken 2015). It is also a
deliberate choice to open up the field of scrutiny to include the many other, increasingly
Page 11 of 22

relevant, terms of engagement between North and South that fall outside of traditional
international development assistance: corporate social responsibility, remittances,
consumption-based humanitarianism or “brand aid” (Richey and Ponte 2011), and
investment. North–South relations suggest a flow, mobility, and a necessarily
transnational context within which to situate the celebrity. The area of humanitarianism
has laid bare celebrity intersections with neoliberal policies that include the
professionalization of the NGO sector, the reliance on celebrities for publicity, and the
marketization of foreign aid (Littler 2008, 2015). Celebrities are seen as responsible for
promoting neoliberal development visions that depend on private-public partnerships
across a variety of actors, including humanitarian agencies, governments, businesses,
and philanthropists. Together with those skeptical of the public impact of celebrities, we
argue that the celebrity engagement in global “do-gooding” reflects and perpetuates a
postdemocratic politics that has the potential to influence North-South relations, but not
always in unilateral or predictable ways. The remaining discussion examines three cases
of celebrities in international affairs: Angelina Jolie as a celebrity diplomat, Ben Affleck as
a celebrity expert, and Madonna as a celebrity humanitarian.
Case Studies
This section investigates the practices of three celebrities as they intersect with elite
politics in interventions in the Global South. While important work on southern celebrities
is also emerging (Hood 2010; Mupotsa 2015; Schwittay 2015), we draw on material from
the cases in Richey (2015) to chart the Western scope of humanitarianism, in Malawi,
Democratic Republic of Congo, and the Burma-Thai border. Celebrities and their
interventions provide an empirical focal point for studying the relations of power that
may be reproduced or disputed from one context to another, as well as how celebrity
capital is converted into other resources. In their various guises—as diplomats, experts,
and humanitarians—these celebrities reflect an entrenchment in elite politics. We choose
these cases as embodying the broad scope and potential for the influence of northern
actors in the Global South. Celebrities furnish an effective lens for viewing the multiple
and diverse relationships that constitute the links forged in humanitarian activities across
North and South.
Angelina Jolie in Burma: Celebrity Diplomat
For Cooper (2008b) and others, Angelina Jolie is considered a consummate “celebrity
diplomat.” Her access to elite figures and policymaking circles is rivaled only by Bono and
Bob Geldorf. In her role as a UNHCR goodwill ambassador, Jolie performs a critical
bridging function when she travels to conflict zones in the Global South to report on
conditions to the donor North. Her status as interlocutor on behalf of the politics of
Page 12 of 22

“others” implies the responsibility of representing their plight, deftly deploying her
celebrity capital amid flashing cameras into a form of political capital.
Jolie’s experience of humanitarian travel forms the basis for her performances as a
transnational elite actor in diplomatic and decision-making circles. Her work as a
goodwill ambassador has taken her to more than forty countries for site visits to refugee
camps, giving her a wide scope for her celebrity humanitarianism. In February 2009 Jolie
visited Mae La Refugee Camp in the Thai-Burma border zone to help draw attention to
ongoing human rights abuses in Burma and to the 147,000 refugees who live in nine
camps along the border. Her daylong visit was successful in attracting international
media coverage and was applauded by the UNHCR for the worldwide response it drew.
With the potential to command media coverage and build morale among the camp
refugees, Jolie’s visit was an opportunity to shape North-South relations by framing
understandings of the conflict for the mass media public, but also for humanitarian
agencies, political actors, and philanthropists.
Through ethnographic research among Burmese refugees and human rights activists in
the border area, Mostafanezhad (2013, 2015) analyzed how Jolie’s one-day visit was
received by persons living within the camps, as well as in popular global media. She
found that the widespread gossip—both in the actual refugee camps and in the media—
privileged the re-presentation of Jolie’s sentimental encounter with Burmese exiles,
rather than drawing attention to the continued human rights atrocities in Burma.
Mostafanezhad (2015) gives the example of meeting Kywe, a young mother of three, the
youngest of whom was strapped to her chest in a patchwork sling. Kywe explained that
she believed Jolie could help the refugees “because she is interested in us and our issues,
so she may help us. She is the one supporting us all the way” (Mostafanezhad 2015, 37).
The social solidarity that Kywe describes is similarly articulated by Kyine, who explained:
“What I heard is that she visited there as an ambassador for UNHCR. I think she can help
people; I feel so cheerful as well because she came here … [celebrities] can [help]
because they are the public figures. Let’s take Jolie. She is famous, attractive and a hard
worker. That is why she became an ambassador” (Mostafanezhad 2015, 37).
In this situation, Jolie perpetuated a geopolitics of hope that foregrounded sentimental

rather than political concerns. As Mostafanezhad argues, “The political is displaced by
the individual with celebrity sheen” (2013, 486). The depoliticization of her visit to the
camp that emerged in the media obscured the widespread geopolitics of the roots of the
crisis that would contextualize the situation of Burmese exiles in the border zone. This
might have included deeper engagement with the roots of the refugee crisis that are
related to the regime in Myanmar, human rights abuses, and persecution of minority
groups. In terms of agenda setting, Jolie’s “intended audience in the North is asked, not
what political-economic relationships facilitated this refugee crisis, but rather what to
think about Jolie’s compassionate concern” (2015, 36). In this case, the presence of a
celebrity affected the interpretation of the refugee situation by sentimentalizing the
Global South in a manner that would have consequences in the donor North. Sentimental
pulls to materially support the refugees and improve their conditions ignore more durable
Page 13 of 22

political responses to the crisis, such as pressuring the Myanmar government to

implement human rights and democratic reforms or furthering the Burmese people’s
agency in addressing their own plight. With her brief dispatches on behalf of the UNCHR,
Jolie’s status as a transnational elite actor is reflected in her “power over” limitations that
do not reflect public engagement and has prevented a fuller, more critical understanding
of the refugee situation, with potential effects on global governance.
Ben Affleck in the Congo: Celebrity Expert
In addition to practices of celebrity diplomacy, celebrities also seek to enter national

debates in the donor North as “experts” based on their site visits or the establishment of
development NGOs in the South. Affleck took steps to build expertise through reading
and repeated trips to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where he met with
grassroots organizations. In 2010 the entertainer cofounded the Eastern Congo Initiative
(ECI) to spur social and economic development in the DRC, “working with and for the
people of Eastern Congo” (ECI website). In contrast to Madonna’s Raising Malawi and its
focus on the local context, ECI’s objectives are split between the United States and DRC:
in the North, Affleck raises funds from elite circles and lobbies political spheres in the
United States to shape foreign aid practices; in the South, ECI distributes grants to local
partner organizations that work in social and economic issues. This type of activity
marshals the experiences and proposals of the celebrity to bear on policymaking
processes about aid and foreign policy and privileges their status as transnational elite
actors. As the cofounder and leading spokesperson for ECI, Affleck serves as both
celebrity humanitarian and expert, speaking on behalf of the Congo to a wider public and
political elites in the North through op-eds, media appearances, and speeches.
Behind the scenes, Affleck’s expertise is supported by williamsworks, a strategic

consulting firm based in Seattle, Washington, that designed ECI and secured financial
and political support. ECI started with enviable financial backing: a multi-million-dollar
fund was raised from donors who are listed as “investors,” including Lauren Powell Jobs
(wife of Apple founder Steve Jobs), Cindy Hensley McCain (wife of Republican
presidential candidate John McCain, she is also described as a cofounder), and the
charitable foundation Humanity United (in turn funded by Pierre Omidyar, founder of
eBay). These funds were amassed prior to ECI’s launch, distorting development processes
of evaluation and demonstrated effectiveness. Corporate partnerships have also been
forged with Theo Chocolates, TOMS, and Starbucks. Here, Affleck’s experience
demonstrates how quickly and efficiently celebrity capital can mobilize the economic and
social capital of wealthy and influential contacts to create an organization. Affleck’s
capital is able to generate financial resources not only for his development projects in the
South, but also for business elites in the North.
Budabin (2015) argues that with this elite network support, Affleck was primed to enter
US political circles and build influence. Despite being a relatively new player in the
humanitarian politics of Washington, D.C., Affleck quickly established his organization
Page 14 of 22

through high-level contacts that provided extensive bipartisan political endorsement.

Between 2010 and 2014 he appeared before three congressional hearings related to the
DRC, demonstrating the credibility he has earned to address and influence US
lawmakers. More than just reporting on his visits and partners’ activities, Affleck seeks to
shape US foreign policy toward the DRC by laying out a unique vision that is backed by a
white paper and other reports commissioned by his organization. But Affleck is no
development expert; to his critics, Affleck’s trips and half dozen years of training have
afforded him only a cursory understanding of the country’s situation. The solutions he
proposes often reflect hegemonic narratives used to justify Western interventions that
have thus far proved ineffective in rebuilding the DRC (see Autesserre 2012). Moreover,
ECI’s granting to local community-based organizations challenges and undermines
Affleck’s support for state solutions, which better suit audiences of US lawmakers.
Affleck’s performance as an expert and his access to economic and political elites may
hold implications for local livelihoods and external interventions (aid, trade, and
diplomacy) as driven by global policy initiatives. With their potential for influence and
access to political capital, celebrity experts threaten development processes by
coalescing political and financial elite support in the donor North for celebrity figures,
rather than following a path of public consultation and evaluation based in the Global
South.
Page 15 of 22

Madonna in Malawi: Celebrity Humanitarian
Celebrity humanitarians play a different type of bridging function when they establish
their own NGOs in the Global South and interact with the politics of development on the
ground. In these cases, celebrity humanitarians are not beholden to the agendas of global
institutions and can formulate unique visions to address development challenges in a site
of their choosing. They bring resources from the donor North and engage with local
publics and elites to establish development NGOs and longer-term projects. One example
is Madonna’s work in Malawi. In 2006 Madonna began a series of efforts to support local
orphan care and education with the creation of an organization called Raising Malawi, a
sign of economic capital in the same manner as Affleck’s ECI. However, as Driessen
(2013) would argue, Madonna’s celebrity capital did not result in symbolic capital that let
her move easily between the world of celebrity and the field of development. Instead, her
humanitarian initiatives quickly became controversial, both globally and locally.1
While global responses echoed many of the criticisms cited above concerning motives and
methods of celebrity figures seeking to better an African country, the local perspective
offers a richer picture of the work of a celebrity humanitarian and the possibilities for
engendering public discussion around development interventions. Through field research
in Malawi, Rasmussen (2015) examined the interpretation of Madonna’s efforts through
popular discourses and the activities of her organization, Raising Malawi. Rasmussen
found that some Malawians consider Madonna a person who cynically exploits poor
Africans to promote her own brand, making grand promises that never materialize. For
example, Rasmussen quotes Jimmy, a farmer from Chinkota village, Malawi, where
Madonna’s Academy for Girls would have been located: “‘It was so special for someone
like her to come visit this place. [ … ] When she came, we expected that our lives would
get better … [but] instead of receiving the blessings, we are now worse off. It all turned
out very different from what we expected’” (2015, 48). However, to other Malawians,
Madonna is a worthy humanitarian who is at least doing something, in contrast to local
elites, who are viewed as even more corrupt and self-serving than the global superstar.
But in contrast to the example of Jolie above, Madonna’s controversial nature spurred
public debate around not only herself, but also the government’s effectiveness.
Rasmussen (2015) argues that against the backdrop of Malawi’s recent democratic
transition, Madonna’s efforts became intertwined with larger discussions about Malawi’s
relationship to the donor North and the ensuing growth of internationally linked NGOs.
The interventions of a celebrity humanitarian raised suspicions about the motivations of
foreign development actors who fail to meet local expectations or follow local protocol.
These public-private partnerships came under scrutiny regarding Madonna’s self-serving
motives, concrete accomplishments, and respect for local voices. But local elites were
also held accountable alongside foreign NGOs for benefiting from these partnerships
while shortchanging the rest of Malawi. These suspicions were more commonly expressed
by the Malawian middle class and elites, who debated whether Madonna’s
humanitarianism was genuine or a matter of cynical branding. For example, on an
Page 16 of 22

Internet website devoted to “Malawi’s Breaking News and Gossip,” one writer stated,
“Madona [sic] should be the one to thank Malawi because she is using Malawi to enrich
herself, the dollars that she raises in the name of Malawi do not equate to the amount she
has spent on the blocks. The bulk of the money she claims to have been misappropriated
was actually spent by herself and her entourage, let her give us the amounts she spent
during her visits” (Rasmussen 2015, 58).
In contrast, the rural poor of Malawi were more concerned with their everyday survival
and accessing the benefits of Madonna’s charitable efforts; they appreciated the tangible
accomplishments of her work in light of the ineffectiveness of self-serving local elites.
Here, the study of a celebrity humanitarian provides a lens on the local disruption created
by celebrities as transnational elite actors who receive varied responses in recipient
communities and provoke debates about development that reveal local power dynamics
and diverse agendas. The controversy generated by her presence in Malawi reveals
collateral effects of celebrity humanitarianism that cut both ways. In a positive light,
Madonna’s efforts focused critical attention on the local politics of development, elitism,
and corruption and spurred public discussion on the government’s impotence, an
example of a celebrity’s capacity to exercise “power with” stakeholders to coerce other
elites to take more efficient action. Indeed, suspicion and disregard heaped on a celebrity
humanitarian from the donor North bred further disenchantment with the role played by
foreign actors in the Global South.
Conclusion: Elite Politics of Celebrity

This article explored the figure of the celebrity as an influential actor in international
affairs, particularly in the shaping of North-South relations. We maintain that the focus of
previous scholarship on celebrities’ influence on the mass public in the donor North is
misplaced and blurs the presence of elite networks that support, rely on, and sustain
celebrities in humanitarianism. Despite expectations that a celebrity will be able to
exercise “power with” the recipients and stakeholders, we have shown how the celebrity
capital of media coverage results in agenda setting that typically demonstrates “power
over” the “others” in the Global South within the changing dynamics of North-South
relations. With their entanglement in local, national, and global governance, celebrities
are acting as other elite actors in international affairs: converting their capital into
economic, social, and political resources that transform the traditional practices of
transnational politics without disrupting relations of power. The cases of Angelina Jolie,
Ben Affleck, and Madonna draw attention to the various ways in which celebrities
perform in international affairs. We find that their acquired functions as diplomats,
experts, and humanitarians demonstrate the reach and influence of celebrity engagement
in elite policymaking circles. The ability of celebrities to exert “power over” North-South
relations at the elite level limits their democratic accountability to their publics in both
the North and South. The exception among our cases is, perhaps surprisingly, Madonna,
Page 17 of 22

whose presence unexpectedly opened a channel for challenging local elites and corrupt
aid practices, at least discursively. With North-South relations dominated by a tilt toward
the elite, the profitable, and the photogenic, we are challenged in locating the political
will of “others.” Without the voices of those affected most by humanitarian debates,
interventions will serve neither justice nor efficacy. The material future of local
livelihoods in both North and South will suffer for lack of transparency and legitimate
authority if elites continue to dominate international affairs under the justification of
humanitarianism. Deepening our understanding of celebrities as transnational elite actors
will further illuminate the complex web of interactions and power relations that
characterizes the contemporary political landscape.
References
Abrahamsen, R. 2012. “Africa in a Global Political Economy of Symbolic Goods.” Review of
African Political Economy 39 (131): 140–142.
Alberoni, F. 1972. “The Powerless ‘Elite’: Theory and Sociological Research on the
Phenomenon of the Stars.” In Sociology of Mass Communications, edited by Denis
McQuail, 75–98. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Autesserre, S. 2012. “Dangerous Tales: Dominant Narratives on the Congo and their
Unintended Consequences.” African Affairs 111: 202–222.
Barnett, M. 2011. Empire of Humanity: A History of Humanitarianism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell

University Press.
Belloni, R. 2007. “The Trouble with Humanitarianism.” Review of International Studies 33

(3): 451–474.
Boltanski, L., and L. Thévenot. 1991. De la justification. NRF essais. Paris: Gallimard.
Brockington, D. 2012. “The Production and Performance of Authenticity: The Work of

Celebrity in International Development.” Paper presented at the Capitalism, Democracy,
and Celebrity Advocacy, University of Manchester.
Brockington, D. 2014a. Celebrity Advocacy and International Development. London and

New York: Routledge.
Brockington, D. 2014b. “The Production and Construction of Celebrity Advocacy in

International Development.” Third World Quarterly 35 (1): 88–108.
Budabin, A. C. 2015. “Ben Affleck Goes to Washington: Celebrity Advocacy, Access and
Influence.” In Celebrity Humanitarianism and North-South Relations: Politics, Place and
Power, edited by L. A. Richey, 131–148. Oxford: Routledge.
Cashmore, E. 2006. Celebrity Culture: Key Ideas. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Page 18 of 22

Chouliaraki, L. 2006. The Spectatorship of Suffering. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Chouliaraki, L. 2013. The Ironic Spectator: Solidarity in the Age of Post-Humanitarianism.

Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Cooper, A. F. 2008a. “Beyond One Image Fits All: Bono and the Complexity of Celebrity
Diplomacy.” Global Governance 14 (3): 265–272.
Cooper, A. F. 2008b. Celebrity Diplomacy. International Studies Intensives. Boulder, CO:

Paradigm Publishers.
Crouch, C. 2004. Post-Democracy. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
De Waal, A. 2008. “The Humanitarian Carnival a Celebrity Vogue.” World Affairs 171 (2):
43–55.
Dieter, H., and R. Kumar. 2008. “The Downside of Celebrity Diplomacy: The Neglected
Complexity of Development.” Global Governance 14: 259–264.
Driessens, O. 2013. “Celebrity Capital: Redefining Celebrity Using Field Theory.” Theory
and Society 42 (5): 543–560.
Duncombe, S. 2007. Dream: Re-Imagining Progressive Politics in an Age of Fantasy. New

York: The New Press.
Dyer, R. 1979. Stars. London: BFI Publishing.
Fassin, D. 2012. Humanitarian Reason: A Moral History of the Present. Berkeley:

University of California Press.
Goodman, M. K., and C. Barnes. 2011. “Star/Poverty Space: The Making of the
‘Development Celebrity.’” Celebrity Studies 2 (1): 69–85.
Hansen, R. D. 1980. “North-South Policy—What’s the Problem?” Foreign Affairs

(Summer). http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/33958/roger-d-hansen/north-
south-policy-whats-the-problem.
Holmes, S., and Redmond, S. 2010. “Editorial: A Journal in Celebrity Studies.” Celebrity
Studies 1 (1): 1–10.
Hood, J. 2010. “Celebrity Philanthropy: The Cultivation of China’s HIV/AIDS Heroes.” In

Celebrity in China, edited by E. Jeffreys and L. Edwards, 85–102. Hong Kong: Hong Kong
University Press.
Huliaras, A., and N. Tzifakis. 2010. “Celebrity Activism in International Relations: In

Search of a Framework for Analysis.” Global Society 24 (2): 255–274.
Kapoor, I. 2013. Celebrity Humanitarianism: The Ideology of Global Charity. New York:
Routledge.
Page 19 of 22

Littler, J. 2008. “‘I Feel Your Pain’: Cosmopolitan Charity and the Public Fashioning of the
Celebrity Soul.” Social Semiotics 18 (2): 237–251.
Littler, J. 2011. “Introduction: Celebrity and the Transnational.” Celebrity Studies 2 (1): 1–
5.
Littler, J. 2015. “The New Victorians? Celebrity Charity and the Demise of the Welfare
State.” Celebrity Studies 6 (4): 471–485.
Lowenthal, L. 1944. “The Triumph of Mass Idols.” In Literature, Popular Culture and
Society, 109–140. Palo Alto, CA: Pacific Books.
Marks, M. P., and Z. M. Fischer. 2002. “The King’s New Bodies: Simulating Consent in the
Age of Celebrity.” New Political Science 24 (3): 371–394.
Marshall, P. D. 1997. Celebrity and Power: Fame in Contemporary Culture. Minneapolis:

University of Minnesota Press.
Mostafanezhad, M. 2013. “‘Getting in Touch with Your Inner Angelina’: Celebrity

Humanitarianism and the Cultural Politics of Gendered Generosity in Volunteer Tourism.”
Third World Quarterly 34 (3): 485–499.
Mostafanezhad, M. 2015. “Angelina Jolie and the Everyday Geopolitics of Celebrity

Humanitarianism in a Thailand–Burma Border Town.” In Celebrity Humanitarianism and
North-South Relations: Politics, Place and Power, edited by L. A. Richey, 27–47. Oxford:
Routledge.
Müller, T. R. 2013. “The Long Shadow of Band Aid Humanitarianism: Revisiting the
Dynamics Between Famine and Celebrity.” Third World Quarterly 34 (3): 470–484.
Mupotsa, D. 2015. “Sophie’s Special Secret: Public Feeling, Consumption and Celebrity
Activism in Post-Apartheid South Africa.” In Celebrity Humanitarianism and North-South
Relations: Politics, Place and Power, edited by L. A. Richey, 88–105. Oxford: Routledge.
Partzsch, L. 2015. “The Power of Celebrities in Global Politics.” Celebrity Studies 6 (2):
178–191.
Rasmussen, L. M. 2015. “Madonna in Malawi: Celebritized Interventions and Local

Politics of Development in the South.” In Celebrity Humanitarianism and North-South
Relations: Politics, Place and Power, edited by L. A. Richey, 48–69. Oxford: Routledge.
Repo, J., and R. Yrjölä. 2011. “The Gender Politics of Celebrity Humanitarianism in
Africa.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 13 (1): 44–62.
Richey, L. A., ed. 2015. Celebrity Humanitarianism and North-South Relations: Politics,
Place and Power. Oxford: Routledge.
Page 20 of 22

Richey, L. A., and S. Ponte. 2008. “Better (Red)TM Than Dead? Celebrities, Consumption
and International Aid.” Third World Quarterly 29 (4): 711–729.
Richey, L. A., and S. Ponte. 2011. Brand Aid: Shopping Well to Save the World. A Quadrant
Book. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Robertson, A. 2015. Media and Politics in a Globalizing World. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Rostow, W. W. 1960. The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Comunist Manifesto. 3rd ed.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Schwittay, A. 2015. “Muhammad Yunus: A Bangladeshi Aid Celebrity.” In Celebrity

Humanitarianism and North-South Relations: Politics, Place and Power, edited by L. A.
Richey, 70–87. Oxford: Routledge.
Scott, M. 2015. “The Role of Celebrities in Mediating Distant Suffering.” International

Journal of Cultural Studies 18 (4): 449–566.
Thrall, A. T., J. Lollio-Fakhreddine, J. Berent, L. Donnelly, W. Herrin, Z. Paquette, R.

Wenglinski, and A. Wyatt. 2008. “Star Power: Celebrity Advocacy and the Evolution of the
Public Sphere.” International Journal of Press/Politics 13 (4): 362–385.
Ticktin, M. 2014. “Transnational Humanitarianism.” Annual Review of Anthropology 43:

273–289.
Van Krieken, R. 2012. Celebrity Society. London and New York: Routledge.
Van Krieken, R. 2015. “Celebrity, Humanitarianism and Settler-Colonialism: G. A

Robinson and the Aborigines of Van Diemen’s Land.” In Celebrity Humanitarianism and
North-South Relations: Politics, Place and Power, edited by L. A. Richey, 189–209. Oxford:
Routledge.
Waters, T. 2001. Bureaucratizing the Good Samaritan: The Limitations of Humanitarian

Relief Operations. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Weber, M. 1968. On Charisma and Institution Building. Edited by S. N. Eisenstadt.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wheeler, M. 2011. “Celebrity Diplomacy: United Nations’ Goodwill Ambassadors and

Messengers of Peace.” Celebrity Studies 2 (1): 6–18.
Wheeler, M. 2013. Celebrity Politics. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Notes:
(1) Madonna’s Kaballah connections came under scrutiny along with questions about her
adoption of two children from Malawi. See http://barthsnotes.com/2007/04/22/madonna-
Page 21 of 22

seeks-kabbalah-converts-in-malawian-orphanages/ and http://nymag.com/news/features/

madonna-malawi-2011-5/.
Lisa Ann Richey
Internationale Udviklingsstudier på Institut for Samfund og Globalisering, Roskilde

Universitet, Denmark.
Alexandra Budabin
Alexandra Budabin is a Human Rights Center Research Fellow at the University of

Dayton, Ohio
Page 22 of 22

RICHEY, L BUDABIN, A. Celebrities in International Affairs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RICHEY, L BUDABIN, A. Celebrities in International Affairs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Celebrities in International Affairs

Oxford Handbooks Online

Abstract and Keywords

Celebrity engagement in global “helping” is not a simple matter of highly photogenic

date: 22 February 2018

date: 22 February 2018

Some of the literature on celebrity do-gooding focuses on the celebrity figure as a

date: 22 February 2018

The Emergence and Practices of Celebrities in

date: 22 February 2018

Celebrity Experts in North-South Relations

date: 22 February 2018

date: 22 February 2018

The term “celebrity humanitarianism” encompasses the expanding field of celebritized

Analytical Framework from Contemporary Academic Debates

date: 22 February 2018

This article relies on an analytical framework to explore celebrities as influential

date: 22 February 2018

Celebrity and Representing the “Other”

date: 22 February 2018

date: 22 February 2018

Humanitarianism, with or without celebrities, is being conceptually debated, understood,

To analyze the role of celebrities in international affairs, we focus on “North–South

Our case review considers celebrity practices in “humanitarianism” or “do-gooding”

date: 22 February 2018

Angelina Jolie in Burma: Celebrity Diplomat

date: 22 February 2018

In this situation, Jolie perpetuated a geopolitics of hope that foregrounded sentimental

date: 22 February 2018

political responses to the crisis, such as pressuring the Myanmar government to

Ben Affleck in the Congo: Celebrity Expert

In addition to practices of celebrity diplomacy, celebrities also seek to enter national

Behind the scenes, Affleck’s expertise is supported by williamsworks, a strategic

date: 22 February 2018

through high-level contacts that provided extensive bipartisan political endorsement.

date: 22 February 2018

Madonna in Malawi: Celebrity Humanitarian

date: 22 February 2018

Conclusion: Elite Politics of Celebrity

date: 22 February 2018

Barnett, M. 2011. Empire of Humanity: A History of Humanitarianism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell

Belloni, R. 2007. “The Trouble with Humanitarianism.” Review of International Studies 33

Brockington, D. 2012. “The Production and Performance of Authenticity: The Work of

Brockington, D. 2014a. Celebrity Advocacy and International Development. London and

Brockington, D. 2014b. “The Production and Construction of Celebrity Advocacy in

date: 22 February 2018

Chouliaraki, L. 2006. The Spectatorship of Suffering. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Chouliaraki, L. 2013. The Ironic Spectator: Solidarity in the Age of Post-Humanitarianism.

Cooper, A. F. 2008b. Celebrity Diplomacy. International Studies Intensives. Boulder, CO:

Crouch, C. 2004. Post-Democracy. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Duncombe, S. 2007. Dream: Re-Imagining Progressive Politics in an Age of Fantasy. New

Dyer, R. 1979. Stars. London: BFI Publishing.

Fassin, D. 2012. Humanitarian Reason: A Moral History of the Present. Berkeley:

Hansen, R. D. 1980. “North-South Policy—What’s the Problem?” Foreign Affairs

Hood, J. 2010. “Celebrity Philanthropy: The Cultivation of China’s HIV/AIDS Heroes.” In

Huliaras, A., and N. Tzifakis. 2010. “Celebrity Activism in International Relations: In

date: 22 February 2018

Marshall, P. D. 1997. Celebrity and Power: Fame in Contemporary Culture. Minneapolis:

Mostafanezhad, M. 2013. “‘Getting in Touch with Your Inner Angelina’: Celebrity

Mostafanezhad, M. 2015. “Angelina Jolie and the Everyday Geopolitics of Celebrity

Rasmussen, L. M. 2015. “Madonna in Malawi: Celebritized Interventions and Local

date: 22 February 2018

Schwittay, A. 2015. “Muhammad Yunus: A Bangladeshi Aid Celebrity.” In Celebrity