Celebrities, the new diplomats

(1)

Celebrities, the new diplomats

A study on the formalization of celebrity

humanitarianism in international diplomacy

Caressa Marèl Kok

Supervised by:

Prof. Dr. A.J. Zwitter

University of Groningen

May 2016

(2)

(3)

Abstract

Contemporary international relations see a plurality of non-‐state actors transnationally networking in order to raise global concerns. These actors do not seek political office, nor aim to take the place of international aid organizations. Instead, they aim to influence policy and activate change. This study turns to a specific transnational network of non-‐state actors: celebrities. These famous individuals have increasingly been accepted as legitimate actors in international diplomacy. Their ability to get personal face time with state officials, UN officials and global economic institutions demonstrates a democratization of foreign policy processes. This celebritization of international politics sees present-‐day celebrities as political actors, in contrast to traditional celebrity humanitarianism where celebrities were activists, merely tasked with raising awareness. Despite this development, this phenomenon is under-‐researched. This study, therefore, focuses on the formalization of celebrity humanitarianism in international diplomacy. It incorporates a theoretical framework comprised of three approaches and examines the emergence and transformation of the phenomenon. It concludes that celebrity humanitarianism has formalized in international diplomacy as the result of an intensified presence and a change of role of celebrity activists. Similarly highlighted by the more in-‐depth case study on Bono and Angelina Jolie, who have emerged in international diplomacy as full fledged diplomats. With the formalization of celebrity humanitarianism in international diplomacy, celebrities have transformed from bystanders to active participants, from activists to diplomats, highlighting that contemporary structures of interaction in international politics are challenging the traditional forms of global power.

Key search terms: Celebrity Humanitarianism, Transnational Activism, Non-‐state Actors, International Diplomacy, Formalization, Bono, Angelina Jolie

(4)

(5)

Abstract

3

5 Preface

9 List of Figures

10 Abbreviations

10 Chapter 1 – Introduction

11

1.1. New actors in international diplomacy: the involvement of celebrities 11 1.2. Aim of this research 12

1.3. Research structure 13

Chapter 2 – Theoretical Framework

15

2.1. The involvement of non-‐state actors in international relations 15 2.2. Transnational advocacy networks 16

2.2.1. The emergence of TANs 19

2.3. Philanthrocapitalism 21

2.4. Authenticity 23

2.4.1. Legitimacy 24

2.4.2. Celebrity authenticity 24

2.5. Applying the theories 26

Chapter 3 – Methodology

27

3.1. The ‘how’ and ‘why’ of research 27

3.2. Qualitative research 27

3.3. Case study research 28

(6)

Chapter 4 – The emergence of celebrity humanitarianism

30

4.1. Introduction 30

4 2. Network of celebrity activists 31

4.2.1. Pre-‐celebrity involvement 31

4.2.2. Danny Kaye: the first humanitarian celebrity 32

4.2.3. Live Aid 33

4.2.4. The United Nations under Secretary-‐General Kofi Annan 34

4.2.5. Product (RED) 35

4.3. Conclusion 36

Chapter 5 – The transformation of celebrity humanitarianism

38

5.2. A changing trend 39

5.2.1. Danny Kaye: the first humanitarian celebrity 40

5.2.2. Live Aid 40

5.2.3. The United Nations under Secretary-‐General Kofi Annan 42

5.2.4. Product (RED) 43

5.3. Conclusion 44

Chapter 6 – Bono and Angelina Jolie

46

6.2. Bono 47

6.2.1. Biography 47

6.2.2. The rock star activist 47

6.2.3. The celebrity diplomat 49

6.2.4. Bono’s legitimacy 50

6.3. Angelina Jolie 51

6.3.1. Biography 51

6.3.2. From Hollywood actress to activist 52 6.3.3. A mother and her rainbow family 52 6.3.4. A full fledged diplomat 53

6.3.5. Angelina Jolie’s legitimacy 55

(7)

Chapter 7 – Discussion

58

7.2. Key findings 58

7.3. Contributions of this research 62

Chapter 8 – Conclusion

63

8.1. The formalization of celebrity humanitarianism 63 8.2. Recommendations for further research 64

Chapter 9 – Bibliography

66

9.1. Books and academic articles 66

(8)

(9)

Preface

Little over a year ago, during one of the thesis sessions at the University of Groningen, I came across literature on celebrity activism in international diplomacy. That scholars scrutinize the involvement of celebrities in the political sphere and term the phenomenon ‘celebrity humanitarianism’, has since then fascinated me. It illustrates that times are changing. Traditional forms of global power have been challenged by the partaking of celebrities in international affairs. Their influence is increasing and present-‐day numerous celebrities are included in policy discussions at the highest political levels.

Despite this presence of famous advocates in global politics, celebrity humanitarianism is an under-‐ researched phenomenon. Therefore, I chose to contribute the final element of my NOHA Master’s degree to this exploratory field within international relations. Throughout my work on this research, I have had many people supporting me and I would like to thank a couple of them in particular:

Lots of gratitude goes to my first supervisor who assisted me throughout the whole process, Prof. Dr. Andrej Zwitter. Thank you for helping me conceptualize and edit this research, and for providing feedback in a constructive and optimistic manner.

It is also a pleasure to thank the NOHA staff at the University of Groningen and Uppsala University for providing me with an incredible amount of knowledge in the field of humanitarian action, conflict and peace-‐building.

Most of all I want to thank my family and friends. Throughout this writing process I have had my ups and downs. Without their endless support and love and their continued belief in me, I would not have completed this thesis.

Veldhoven, May 2016 Caressa Marèl Kok

(10)

List of Figures

#

Name

Page

1 Transnational advocacy networks. 18

2 Boomerang pattern. 20

3 Emergence of TANs in international relations. 21

4 Expressions of philanthrocapitalism. 23

5 Sources of authenticity. 26

Abbreviations

AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome CFR Council on Foreign Relations

CSR Corporate Social Responsibility DATA Debt, Aid, Trade, Africa

G8 Group of Eight

HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection IDP Internally Displaced Person

IGO Intergovernmental Organization IO International Organization IRA Irish Republican Army

MDG Millennium Development Goal NGO Nongovernmental Organization SDG Sustainable Development Goal TAN Transnational Advocacy Network UK United Kingdom

UN United Nations

UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

US United States

(11)

Chapter 1 – Introduction

1.1. New actors in international diplomacy: the involvement of celebrities

This year’s World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, saw world leaders and chief executives come together to help shape the global and regional economic agenda in order to improve the state of the world (World Economic Forum, 2016). Rock legend Bono, from the band U2, has been a regular attendant at the Forum in Davos for several years. A decade ago he used the platform to launch Product (RED), a brand campaign that allows consumers, via buying goods, to positively affect someone’s live at the other side of the world (RED, 2016). Leonardo DiCaprio, who is actor by profession, addressed this year’s attendees of the Forum when he received the prestigious Crystal Award for his work on the issue of climate change (Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation, 2016). Emma Watson, an actress famous for her role in the Harry Potter movies, also attended the Forum to release the first gender parity report as part of her responsibility as United Nations (UN) Women Goodwill Ambassador.

Non-‐state actors, such as celebrities, are increasingly more involved in international affairs (Huliaras and Tzifakis, 2010; 2012). On a regular basis the media reports on these celebrity do-‐ gooders, whose activism represents a democratization of foreign policy processes. Within contemporary international relations international affairs are not merely discussed by state officials, celebrities have gradually moved into the political sphere to advocate global causes (Wheeler, 2012). Just recently Hollywood actor George Clooney had a private meeting with German chancellor Angela Merkel to discuss the Syria crisis (Child, 2016). Similarly, numerous humanitarian organizations are siding with celebrities in order to call attention to global issues. Celebrities, individuals whose social influence originates from recognized talent or achievements and who have succeeded in becoming famous (Cook and Ryan, 2015, p.71), are challenging traditional forms of global power and are increasingly becoming the new global actors in international diplomacy, humanitarian aid and charity work. They have been branded as ‘humanitarian celebrities’ and ‘celebrity humanitarianism’ has become a concept within the contemporary scholarly literature on international affairs (Jerslev, 2014, p.171; Cooper, 2009).

(12)

‘celebrity colonialism’ in his book with the same name (2009). Other critical studies argue that celebrity humanitarianism is purely a marketing strategy that only serves the self-‐interest of the celebrity (Kapoor, 2013; Littler, 2008) or is seen as a capitalistic venture (Richey and Ponte, 2008; Bishop and Green, 2009). Other studies focus on the new role of celebrities in international diplomacy. In these studies, celebrity do-‐gooders are seen as the new political actors in international development (Higgins and Drake, 2006; Wheeler, 2012a; Bennett, 2011), as celebrity diplomats (Cooper, 2008b; Wheeler, 2011; Alleyne, 2005; Engle, 2012) and as celebrity philanthropists (Thorup, 2013; Jeffreys and Allatson, 2015). Moreover, a growing body of scholarly literature is scrutinizing a number of celebrities involved in international relations in order to critically assess their authenticity, legitimacy and personal motives. Most prominent of these celebrity activists studied, alone or in comparison, are Bono (Richey and Ponte, 2008; Yrjölä, 2009; Higgins and Drake, 2006), Angelina Jolie (Kogen, 2014; Chouliaraki, 2012; Jerslev, 2014; Mostafanezhad, 2013), George Clooney (Huliaras and Tzifakis, 2012) and Bob Geldof (Repo and Yrjölä, 2011). Hence, a constantly expanding body of scholarly literature is critically examining celebrity humanitarianism and its new role in global politics.

1.2. Aim of this research

What is less discussed, however, is that in their new role celebrities have not only triggered a celebritization of international politics, they have also become an established authority within international affairs (Higgins and Drake, 2006; Cooper, 2007; Driessens, 2013). Whether their influence has positive or negative effects, political leaders and international organizations (IOs) have welcomed and accepted celebrities in their inner circle. The intention of this work, therefore, is not to advocate for or against the involvement of celebrities in international relations, but to determine how celebrities have become the modern players in international diplomacy, plus, simultaneously, contributing to the current body of knowledge regarding this new phenomenon. Therefore, this work seeks to shed light on the formalization, the standardization of behavior, of celebrity humanitarianism in international affairs. For that reason, this study aims to answer the following research question:

To what extent and in what way has celebrity humanitarianism been formalized in international diplomacy?

(13)

study aspires to acquire insights into how celebrity humanitarianism has been able to emerge in international affairs and how, over time, celebrities have become actual diplomats. Previous studies mention the emergence of celebrity humanitarianism in politics, but still little is known on the causes of the phenomenon. Some notable exceptions are Huliaras and Tzifakis (2010), Richey and Ponte (2008), and Wheeler (2012a). However, existing literature on the causes of celebrity humanitarianism does not provide clear answers. Huliaras and Tzifakis demonstrate that external and individual factors account for the development of celebrity humanitarianism (2010), while Richey and Ponte argue that three different ‘historical waves’ explain contemporary celebrity activism, with the last wave being the time period in the 1970s when activists changed the focus from local and national concerns to global issues (2008, p.716). In contrary, Huliaras and Tzifakis (2010, p.259) and Wheeler (2012a, pp.2-‐3) argue that the UN, particularly when headed by Kofi Annan during the late 1990s, fully realized celebrity involvement in international diplomacy.

Similarly, little is known in what way celebrity humanitarianism has changed over time. While existing literature has studied the celebrity activists as new political actors (Higgins and Drake, 2006; Wheeler, 2012a; Bennett, 2011), as celebrity diplomats (Cooper, 2008b; Wheeler, 2011; Alleyne, 2005; Engle, 2012), and as celebrity philanthropists (Thorup, 2013; Jeffreys and Allatson, 2015), scholars have not researched in what way the role of celebrities has changed since their emergence in the political sphere. The phenomenon celebrity humanitarianism, hence, is under-‐ researched. Therefore, what the paper aims to do is to provide clear answers on the process of formalization of celebrity humanitarianism in international affairs by asking the following sub-‐ questions:

v What factors have led to the emergence of celebrity humanitarianism in international

diplomacy?

v To what extent has the content or role of celebrity humanitarians in international diplomacy

changed over time?

v To what extent has this change led to new discussions on authenticity and legitimacy among

academics?

v How have Bono and Angelina Jolie emerged as celebrity humanitarians in international

diplomacy and in what way has their status as an ‘agent of change’ changed over time?

1.3. Research structure

(14)

Discussion and Conclusion. The first part of this study explains the Theoretical Framework used in this research, which is comprised of a detailed description of Keck and Sikkink’s ‘Transnational Advocacy Network’ (TAN) model, Thorup’s ‘Philanthrocapitalism’ concept and Brockington’s ‘Authenticity’ theory. The second part, the Methodology chapter, describes the approach by which data was gathered for the analysis. It gives justifications for the choices that were made with regards to the methodology and it provides the limitations of the research and the methodology itself. The Analysis part is divided into three chapters. The first chapter provides an historical context to the phenomenon of celebrity humanitarianism and discusses the factors that may have contributed to the emergence and development of the phenomenon. It particularly tries to answer the sub-‐ question: ‘what factors have led to the emergence of celebrity humanitarianism in international diplomacy?’ by discussing celebrity humanitarianism as a TAN (Keck and Sikkink, 1999). The second chapter discusses the changes celebrity humanitarianism has been through since its emergence in international affairs and analyzes whether these changes have led to new academic debates on authenticity and legitimacy. In particular the second chapter tries to answer the sub-‐questions: ‘to what extent has the content or role of celebrity humanitarians in international diplomacy changed over time’ and ‘to what extent has this change led to new discussions on authenticity and legitimacy among academics?’, by discussing celebrity humanitarianism as a form of philanthrocapitalism (Thorup, 2013) and utilizing Brockington’s theory on celebrity authenticity (2011). The third chapter examines two celebrity humanitarians: rock legend Bono and Hollywood actress Angelina Jolie, hereafter referred to as Jolie. It discusses their humanitarian personas and their transformations over time. The chapter aspires to illustrate the individual formalization process of two of the most well known celebrity activists. In particular the third chapter aims to answer the sub-‐question: ‘how have Bono and Angelina Jolie emerged as celebrity humanitarians in international diplomacy and in what way has their status as an ‘agent of change’ changed over time?’. The fourth part, the Discussion, combines the theoretical framework with the case studies on celebrity humanitarianism and draws further insights on the formalization of the phenomenon. Lastly, the Conclusion answers the main research question and revisits the major findings of the study. Additionally, the conclusion provides recommendations for future research.

(15)

Chapter 2 – Theoretical Framework

2.1. The involvement of non-‐state actors in international relations

Contemporary international relations see a plurality of non-‐state actors transnationally networking in order to raise global concerns. This emerging trend of non-‐state actors in international relations has stimulated cooperation and dialogue between governments, IOs, intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). It marks the progressive development of international affairs as sites for the interaction of both political and social interests. Consequently, scholarly literature on international relations has seen the emergence of a small number of theoretical models on the involvement of non-‐state actors in the political sphere. One of these theoretical approaches is Keck and Sikkink’s model on advocacy networks (1998). Keck and Sikkink argue that some transnational networks involve cooperate firms, while others comprise of scientists who aim to influence policy (Bulkeley, 2014). Other networks involve activists, who have formed an alliance based on their shared values and ideas. These activists do not seek political office, nor aim to take the place of international aid organizations. Instead, they aim to influence policy and activate change. To phrase these coalitions of transnational activists, as ‘transnational advocacy networks’, has been introduced by Keck and Sikkink in their book ‘Activists beyond borders’ (1998).

Similarly, Thorup’s concept of philanthrocapitalism is such a theoretical model on the involvement of non-‐state actors in international affairs. Like activists, private initiatives, such as corporate social responsibility (CSR) and philanthropy, are novel in global politics. The trend of linking capitalism with altruism is rather new, though initiatives to partner businesses with activism are abundant. Increasingly the private sector is interested in creating a positive impact on society and the environment, which goes beyond its initial objective to generate profit (Sahlin-‐Andersson, 2006; Maignan and Ralston, 2002; Lougee and Wallace, 2008). This is not only illustrated by the numerous projects of big scale companies, such as Shell with its own Shell Foundation as part of its sustainability strategy (Carus, 2013), but also in small local businesses who sponsor a charity domestically or internationally, such as the supermarket PLUS Andre and Joyce van Reijen from Veldhoven, the Netherlands who support local entrepreneurs in Kigali, Rwanda (Fair2, 2016). Similarly, billionaires Bill and Melinda Gates, through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have donated own money to the cause of ending poverty (Cooper, 2008a, pp.269-‐270).

(16)

Brockington’s theory on celebrity authenticity is part of this research’s theoretical framework. The following paragraph presents an overview of these relevant theoretical models. In addition to defining the concepts, this chapter clarifies how these theories are applied in the context of celebrity humanitarianism. It concludes with a theoretical framework that is then used to acquire insights on the emergence and transformation of celebrity humanitarianism.

2.2. Transnational advocacy networks

Though not a new phenomenon at the time, activists’ involvement in international affairs had never been studied before when Keck and Sikkink introduced the term ‘transnational advocacy network’ (Hawkins, 1999, p.119). Hence, in 1998, transnational activism was an under-‐researched topic within the field of international relations (Huliaras and Tzifakis, 2010, p.256). Yet, literature did exist on the organization of networks, social movements and group formation (Morris and Mueller, 1992; Tuckman, 1965; Knoke and Kuklinski, 1982). Similarly, research on transnational networks was common (Snyder, 2011; Geissel, 2006). Nonetheless, little had been written on the advocacy factor of these structures of interactions. Hence, questions related to the ‘how’ and ‘why’ individuals and organizations form an advocacy network were never asked. Existing academic literature had failed to formulate theoretical schemes with regards to the increasingly active involvement of activists in international relations. Moreover, no studies were done on the creation and emergence of TANs in global politics, while the fact was that these campaigners without borders had been able to influence numerous policies, particularly on equal rights for women, environmental issues and human rights, as illustrated by Keck and Sikkink (Lerche, 2008, p.240). It proved the need to fill the gap with a theoretical framework on an issue largely ignored by scholars and that would reflect the increasing role of these new actors in international diplomacy (Hawkins, 1999).

(17)

politics. According to Keck and Sikkink the last aspect, namely information exchange and strategically mobilizing information to promote causes, was what differentiates TANs from other networks operating in international politics (Ibid). Transnational activists cleverly assemble information to raise awareness on global concerns, put new matters on the global agenda and try to change the political debates. To illustrate, American economist and director of the Earth Institute at Colombia University Jeffrey Sachs is seen as the leading expert on the fight against poverty. He has worked with UN Secretary-‐General Annan to advocate for the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), with current UN Secretary-‐General Ban Ki-‐moon on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and with numerous IOs (Jeffrey Sachs, 2016). Sachs has, thus, created a network of actors equally concerned about global poverty and strategically shared his expertise in economic data, in order to raise awareness on global economic development and to persuade states to alter existing policies to the end of fighting poverty in the world. Thereby, in the end, the main aim of advocacy networks is to persuade and pressure governments (Lerche, 2008, p.240) and to ‘challenge the status quo’ (Kiel, n.d., p.82). This objective has been most successful with environmental issues, human rights issues and women’s right issues. Consequently, more than any other transnational network, advocacy networks have instigated institutional change (Lerche, 2008, p.240; Keck and Sikkink, 1998, p.1; Keck and Sikkink, 1999, p.89).

By using the concept ‘network’ to describe the influence of non-‐state actors in international affairs, Keck and Sikkink point out that networks operate both as a structure, “as patterns of interactions among organizations and individuals”, and as actors in international relations (Keck and Sikkink, 1998, p.5). Consequently, Keck and Sikkink argue that any attempt to approach transnational activism must be both structural as actor-‐centered. Keck and Sikkink’s TAN theory, therefore, concentrates on four questions, see figure one.

(18)

Figure 1. Transnational advocacy networks.

First, Keck and Sikkink’s theoretical approach to TANs focuses on the characteristics of the advocacy network. As mentioned earlier, a TAN is a way of organizing where interactions revolve around information exchange to advocate causes and the use of transnational activists to influence policies of governments and organizations. Keck and Sikkink identify seven actors that often play a significant part in advocacy networks: “(1) international and domestic NGOs, research and advocacy organizations; (2) local social movements; (3) foundations; (4) the media; (5) churches, trade unions, consumer organizations and intellectuals; (6) parts of regional and international intergovernmental organizations; (7) parts of the executive and/or parliamentary branches of governments” (1999, pp.91-‐92). In most cases NGOs promote new ideas, advocate causes and aim to influence policy. Secondly, Keck and Sikkink aim to clarify the emergence of TANs in international politics. While the TAN concept is rather new, advocacy networks are not. For instance the campaign to abolish slavery in the nineteenth century and the international suffrage movement for women’s rights were both advocacy networks (Keck and Sikkink, 1999, p.39). “But their number, size, and professionalism and the speed, density and complexity of international linkages among them has grown dramatically in the last three decades” (Keck and Sikkink, 1999, p.10). As a result of the international character of these advocacy networks, it is unclear why and how they emerge. Therefore, Keck and Sikkink propose that TANs almost certainly emerge around issues where: “(1) channels between domestic groups and their governments are hampered or severed where such channels are ineffective for resolving a conflict, setting into motion the ‘boomerang’ pattern of influence characteristic of these networks; (2) activists or ‘political entrepreneurs’ believe that

TANs

What is a transnanonal advocacy network?

Why and how have transnanonal advocacy networks

emerged?

(19)

networking will further their missions and campaigns, and actively promote them; (3) international conferences and other forms of international contacts create arenas for forming and strengthening networks” (1999, pp.92-‐93).

Keck and Sikkink’s third question informs how these advocacy networks work. Since transnational activism challenges traditional forms of global power, in order to be able to influence states and IOs, TANs need to use different forms of power, for example strategically mobilizing information. According to Keck and Sikkink these advocacy networks use four kinds of tactics to pressure or persuade governments and IOs: “(1) information politics, or the ability to move politically usable information quickly and credibly to where it will have the most impact; (2) symbolic politics, or the ability to call upon symbols, actions or stories that make sense of a situation or claim for an audience that is frequently far away; (3) leverage politics, or the ability to call upon powerful actors to affect a situation where weaker members of a network are unlikely to have influence; and (4) accountability politics, or the effort to oblige more powerful actors to act on vaguer policies or principles they formally endorsed” (1999, p.95).

The last question aspires to analyze the influence of advocacy networks. Keck and Sikkink state that assessing effectiveness requires analysis at various levels. They identify five types of influences: “(1) issue creation and attention/agenda setting; (2) influence on discursive positions of states and regional and international organizations; (3) influence on institutional procedures; (4) influence on policy change in ‘target actors’ which may be states, international or regional organizations, or private actors like the Nestle ́ corporation; (5) influence on state behavior” (1999, p.98).

2.2.1. The emergence of TANs

In order to answer the first sub-‐question, on the emergence of celebrity humanitarianism in international diplomacy, this study focuses on the second question of Keck and Sikkink’s model, as it particularly aims to answer the questions how, why and when TANs emerge.

(20)

all over the world. In addition the NGO of State A appeals to transnational NGOs, so that together they can pressure and persuade the government of State A to alter policies. It is due to the noticeable information exchange among NGOs that a TAN is able to emerge and is capable of influencing policies, advancing their missions and strengthening their networks.

However, injustice and oppression in the world does not solely lead to movements, revolutions and advocacy networks. Activists, “people who care enough about some issue that they are prepared to incur significant costs and act to achieve their goals”, are essential in the creation of TANs when they believe that transnational networking furthers a particular mission or campaign. This is done by sharing information, increasing visibility and increasingly gaining access to audiences (Keck and Sikkink, 1998, p.14).

Figure 2. Boomerang pattern.

(21)

literature on these particular advocacy networks is whether these networks have any impact on international affairs (Huliaras and Tzifakis, 2010, p.256; Kiel, n.d., p.77). Correspondingly, to fit the direction of the current trend in international relations and fill the gap in the literature, this study intends to clarify the emergence of the advocacy network of celebrity humanitarians via Keck and Sikkink’s theoretical model. In figure three the approach to answer the question: what factors have led to the emergence of celebrity humanitarianism in international diplomacy?, is visualized.

Figure 3. Emergence of TANs in international relations.

2.3. Philanthrocapitalism

Philanthrocapitalism, a concept coined by ‘the Economist’ in an article on the new philanthropists of the world (The Economist, 2006), illustrates that philanthropy has come to resemble capitalism. Present-‐day philanthropists like to invest their money with the highest possibility to make a difference. The origins of philanthropy stem from the ancient Greeks, where ‘philos’ means ‘loving in the sense of benefitting or caring for’ and ‘anthros’ ‘human’ or ‘humanity’ (Muller, 2001). Correspondingly, these new philanthropists with love for humanity aim to “maximize their social return” (The Economist, 2006). This new group of philanthropists shifted away from the traditional foundation that they would normally set up and piloted a new model for welfare provision. As philanthropists have the money to take risks, they play a useful role in providing new methods to governments, who are less likely to take that same risk. Equally involving capitalism with charity is

TANs emerge around issues where:

channels between domesnc groups and their governments are hampered or severed where such channels are ineﬀecnve for resolving

a conﬂict, serng into monon the ‘boomerang’ pasern of inﬂuence characterisnc of these networks;

acnvists or ‘polincal entrepreneurs’ believe that networking will further their missions and campaigns, and

acnvely promote them;

internanonal conferences and other forms of internanonal contacts

(22)

the initiative called ‘Initiative for Live’, in which four young people from Denmark sold graduation caps of which the proceeds went to the NGO Save the Children (Thorup, 2013, p.555). Thus, philanthrocapitalism does not solely define new ways of doing philanthropy by businesses and the wealthy of the world, but also initiatives by the public who blend charity with consumerism.

The contemporary system of capitalism increasingly receives critique, the ones that have more get even more and the others get much less, which was highlighted after the 2008 financial crisis. Philanthrocapitalism, therefore, is an attempt to assert that there is no opposition between the market and the common good. And so Thorup argues that philanthropy is a sign of contemporary capitalism, one that “integrates ethical, emotional, relational, cognitive and ecological resources in all capitalist processes”. Philanthrocapitalism is, therefore, integrating the critique of capitalism and turning it into an asset (2013, p.558). What the term philanthrocapitalism suggests, thus, is that capitalism in itself can be charitable.

When the magazine ‘The Economist’ introduced the concept of philanthrocapitalism in 2006, little was known about this development among philanthropists. Bishop and Green developed the concept more comprehensively in their book ‘Philanthrocapitalism: how the rich can save the world’ (2009), after which scholarly literature, on philanthropy and the appliance of business strategies to achieve better results, expanded significantly. Some argue its emergence in international development (Farrell, 2012; Birn, 2014), while others critically cite its initiatives (Bosworth, 2011; McGoey, 2012; Wilson, 2014). Nonetheless, little has been written on the different expressions of philanthropy in present-‐day capitalism, since existing literature has mostly solely covered corporate philanthropy (Mescon and Tilson, 1987; Brammer and Millington, 2006; Valor, 2007). Therefore, Thorup argues that a model to differentiate the types of philanthropy is necessary to research how philanthropy can serve to justify the extreme equality in the world. Thorup argues there are currently four expressions of philanthropy as ideology, see figure four:

(23)

Figure 4. Expressions of philanthrocapitalism. In order to answer the second and fourth sub-‐question of this study, on the transformation of celebrity humanitarianism since its emergence in international politics, this research makes use of Thorup’s theoretical approach. This model by Thorup is chosen for this study as it merges globalization, capitalism and the activism of non-‐state actors, as current transnational activism not only constitutes of celebrities, but also businesses and consumers are increasingly more involved with philanthropic initiatives. The various expressions of philanthrocapitalism might clarify to what extent celebrity humanitarianism has changed over time by either incorporating other expressions of philanthropy or shifting between them. This focus on the changing role and content of celebrity activists fits the direction of the current trend in the diplomatic world, where celebrities have become political actors involved at the highest levels of global society.

2.4. Authenticity

One main criticism of celebrity humanitarianism is that celebrity activists are not authentic, not real, and thus must gain a sense of authenticity in order to be successful as celebrity diplomats (Brockington, 2011, p.3; Goodman and Barnes, 2011, p.74; Jerslev, 2014, p.172). While the media implies that the partnerships between organizations and celebrity activists need to appear authentic, Jerslev, in contrast, argues that the authenticity of those celebrity do-‐gooders is similarly important. Additionally, she cites that authenticity “is a relational and discursive endeavor and is therefore always negotiated in specific contexts” (2014, p.172). Jerslev builds her definition on that of Brockington who similarly argues the constructed nature of authenticity and states that, in order

Philanthrocapitalism

Consumer

(24)

for a successful cooperation between celebrities and NGOs, celebrities must seem authentic. Brockington, however, cites that not only the affiliation between organizations and celebrities and celebrities themselves must appear authentic, the tasks and actions of celebrity activists equally must give the impression of authenticity. Accordingly, Brockington defines authenticity as follows: “authenticity therefore is not something which is given in the character, history, interest and expertise of the public figures who get involved in good causes. Instead it is constructed, negotiated and mediated over time and between people and institutions” (2011, p.3). While Goodman and Barnes, similarly, put authenticity at the center of the performance of celebrity activists, which can increase through interviews and newspaper articles, they foremost argue that authenticity is acquired by photo opportunities, a sense of knowledge and witnessing crises on behalf of the public (2011, p.79). Hence, Goodman and Barnes’ definition of authenticity differs from Jerslev and Brockington as the former do not emphasize its constructed and negotiated nature.

For this study, the definition of Brockington is used, given his emphasis on authenticity as a negotiated concept. The analysis in chapter five and six stresses this constantly constructed, negotiated and mediated nature of authenticity to research whether new discussions on authenticity and legitimacy arose as celebrity humanitarianism gradually transformed.

2.4.1. Legitimacy

The dictionary defines legitimacy as “undisputed credibility”, and even identifies authenticity as its synonym (The Free Dictionary, 2016). Thereby, claims of legitimacy are often linked to claims of authenticity. Brockington argues that some scholars believe that only expert authority provides legitimate reasons to speak for others or about their problems (2011, p.3). Farrell, on the other hand, cites an activist’s longstanding relationship with politics as a reason for his or her credibility. Additionally, the lack of personal gain from transnational activism plus concerns for the global South gains the celebrity credibility. To illustrate, Farrell argues that Bono’s authentic representation as an activist for HIV/AIDS in Africa legitimizes his further actions. Consequently, allowing Bono to become a ‘legitimate political representative’ (Farrell, 2012, pp.397-‐398). Hence, discussions on legitimacy are inherently linked to discussions on authenticity. In the current study, therefore, legitimacy is defined as those celebrity activists perceived as authentic or credible enough to speak on behalf of peoples, organizations and places.

2.4.2. Celebrity authenticity

(25)

needs to seem real. “It does have to feel authentic and it does need to be a proper relationship between the celebrity and the charity because otherwise the investment does not pay off”, is a quote from an unnamed source interviewed by Brockington for his article (2011, p.20). Another source cites, “the media can often pick up on celebrities who are working on charity work for their own gain and not because they are passionate about the charity” (Brockington, 2011, p.21). To illustrate, an article on Jolie and her goodwill work on a celebrity website let some readers to comment on the actress’ motives. Most notable is: Tamsin #224: “…Jolie’s true talent is exploiting people’s tragedies for self gain” (Jerslev, 2014, p.180).

Yet, the main critique critics have is that celebrities often fail to have sufficient intellectual or personal knowledge on poverty or specific places, and should, therefore, refrain from speaking based on experiential authority (Kempadoo, 2015; Haynes, 2014; Jelača, 2014; Malik, 2012). Contrariwise, Brockington states that authenticity of celebrity do-‐gooders cannot be claimed solely on expertise. “Rather, the negotiations and mediations which construct authenticity are based on complex, and not always consistent, mixes of expert authority, experiential authority, sympathy, empathy and affinity” (2011, p.3). Hence, in order for the partnership between celebrity activists and development organizations to be perceived as authentic, the tasks and actions of celebrities necessitates the representation of several different claims. Problematic, however, is that celebrities from the global North have no experience with life in the global South. Hence, to advocate causes from, for instance, African countries is challenging due to a lack of connection with the far away places and people. Similarly, development issues are often extremely complex, how can celebrity activists claim to have knowledge on the people, the places and the problems? While these issues signify the problematic case of authenticity claims by celebrity activists, Brockington argues that authenticity is certainly possible, but it is established by several different ‘organic connections’.

“Authenticity ..can mean several things. Have you seen the problem? Have you been there, do you go there regularly? Do you have empathy with the issue and with the audience – e.g. if it’s a story about children, are you a mum or dad? Are you concerned with issues of injustice?” (2011, p.21).

Brockington names four different sources of authenticity, see figure five:

Celebrities, the new diplomats