Virtue, visibility, vanity: the dilemma of celebrity activism

0

There was a time when celebrities stuck to what they knew best — acting, singing, playing sports, looking glamorous. Today, that’s no longer enough. A social media following of millions comes with an expectation to use that platform for something —preferably a cause deemed noble, photogenic and hashtag-friendly. But when activism becomes another marketing exercise, it’s worth asking: is celebrity activism a force for good, or just another way to stay relevant?   

Recent events have only intensified this debate. Just this week, Gal Gadot’s Hollywood Walk of Fame ceremony was disrupted by protesters on both sides of the Israel-Palestine conflict. While the Israeli actress is best known for Wonder Woman, her public support for the Israeli military has made her a political flashpoint, even at a supposedly apolitical, celebratory event. The incident highlights the risks celebrities face when their personal lives and political perceptions intersect with their public personas — whether they actively seek an activist role or not.   

Celebrity and Activism: An Uneasy Marriage 

At its core, being a celebrity and being an activist require two very different skill sets. Celebrities are, by definition, famous — often for their talent, but sometimes simply for being famous. Their careers are built on visibility, branding, and public appeal. Activists, on the other hand, don’t just talk about issues; they live them. They don’t have the luxury of treating activism as a hobby because, for them, it is their identity.   

This is where the tension arises. While grassroots activists dedicate their lives to fighting systemic injustices, celebrities can afford to dip in and out of activism between film premieres and world tours. For some, it’s a genuine passion. For others, it’s another PR move… a way to stay in the headlines and cultivate a socially conscious image.   

But as the protests against Gadot demonstrate, the lines between these categories are increasingly blurred. Even when a celebrity isn’t explicitly championing a cause, their perceived political alignments — through their nationality, past statements, or silence on certain issues — can make them a lightning rod for controversy.   

Why Do Celebrities Get Political?   

There are plenty of reasons why A-listers embrace activism. Some, like Malala Yousafzai or Waris Dirie, are activists first and celebrities second, using their visibility to push for genuine change. Others, like Michael J. Fox or Marcus Rashford, advocate for causes they have a deep personal connection to.   

“Supporting a cause can help celebrities appear thoughtful, knowledgeable and principled.”

But let’s not pretend that every celebrity activist is driven by pure altruism. In an industry where personal brand is everything, aligning with a political or social cause can be a way to project depth, intelligence, and moral integrity. It can also be a strategic career move — endorsing the right cause can attract lucrative sponsorships, ingratiate stars with politically engaged audiences and keep their name circulating in the media.   

And, of course, there’s the role of agents and PR teams, carefully selecting causes that ‘fit the brand’. A rising pop star championing LGBTQ+ rights? Progressive and youthful. A Hollywood darling posting about climate change? Thoughtful and award-season-friendly. Too often, activism feels more like a marketing strategy than a moral conviction.   

The contradiction is especially stark in the music industry, where some artists shift from fringe activists to multimillionaire plutocrats. Ed Sheeran, who once shone a light on addiction and homelessness in The A Team (2011), later faced criticism for reportedly installing anti-homeless railings outside his London mansion. Perhaps Edwyn Collins was onto something when he sang, “Too many protest singers, not enough protest songs” in A Girl Like You (1994), critiquing artists who adopt the aesthetics of rebellion without producing music that genuinely challenges the status quo. 

Yet, Gadot’s situation underscores how a celebrity doesn’t have to seek out activism for controversy to find them. Her support for the Israeli military, particularly in the wake of the attacks on October 7, 2023, and subsequent war in Gaza, has made her a political figure by default. The Walk of Fame protest wasn’t just about her as an individual; it was about the broader expectations placed on public figures in today’s hyper-politicised world.   

The Power of Celebrity: When It Works   

Despite the scepticism, there’s no denying that celebrity activism can drive real impact. When Taylor Swift encouraged voter registration, tens of thousands of people signed up. When Leonardo DiCaprio speaks about climate change, millions listen. When Harry Styles directed fans to boycott SeaWorld, the company’s ticket sales plummeted. 

Celebrities have something grassroots activists often lack: a massive platform. They can make obscure issues mainstream, rallying public opinion in ways that traditional activism often struggles to do. They also bring in money — corporate sponsors and major donors are far more likely to open their wallets when a famous face is attached to the cause.  

Governments and NGOs know this, which is why they strategically partner with celebrities to push social initiatives. Done well, these collaborations can be game-changers, drawing attention to causes that desperately need it. But done poorly, they risk turning complex issues into oversimplified Instagram posts.   

The Pitfalls of Performative Activism   

For all the good celebrity activism can do, it’s also rife with problems. The biggest? A lack of depth. When activism is reduced to a slogan on a T-shirt or a single tweet, it risks trivialising serious issues.   

There’s also the problem of perceived authenticity. If a celebrity’s actions don’t align with their words, the backlash is swift and merciless. Leonardo DiCaprio’s climate activism is regularly mocked due to his penchant for private jets. Kendall Jenner’s infamous Pepsi ad attempted to package protest movements into a feel-good marketing stunt, and the internet never let her forget it.   

Then there’s the risk of drowning out actual activists. When a celebrity becomes the face of a movement, they often overshadow those with lived experience. Their well-meaning interventions can sometimes ignore the needs of local communities, offering simplified solutions to deeply complex problems.   

The High Price of Speaking Out   

Of course, activism isn’t always a win-win for celebrities. Taking a political stance comes with risks: alienating fans, losing brand deals, and even facing professional blacklisting. The Dixie Chicks (now The Chicks) saw their careers nosedive after criticising President Bush. Colin Kaepernick, once an NFL star, found himself without a team after kneeling during the national anthem.  

Even staying silent can be controversial. In today’s climate, celebrities who don’t speak up are often accused of cowardice or complicity. The expectation to comment on every issue is relentless — and yet, when they do, they open themselves up to scrutiny, criticism, and potential career fallout.  

“Choosing not to speak out can also spark backlash…”

This dynamic is particularly visible when celebrities wade into global issues where their involvement can sometimes veer into ‘white saviour’ territory. Take Stacey Dooley, for example, whose Comic Relief film documenting child poverty in Uganda faced backlash for perpetuating the white saviour complex. Her images, framed as a Western celebrity helping ‘save’ African children, inadvertently reduced a complex crisis to a simple, feel-good narrative. Similarly, Elon Musk’s attempt to take over the Thai cave rescue operation in 2018 drew criticism for defying the Thai authorities’ wishes and offering a solution that was seen as more about Musk’s personal ego than genuinely addressing the crisis. While their intentions may have been well-meaning, both cases highlight how celebrity interventions can overshadow local voices and expertise. 

So, Should Celebrities Stick to Entertainment?   

The truth is, there’s no simple answer. Celebrity activism is neither wholly good nor wholly bad — it’s a messy, complicated force that can be both inspiring and frustrating. When done right, it can bring attention, funding, and real change to critical issues. When done wrong, it can be shallow, self-serving, or even damaging.   

Perhaps the key lies in authenticity. Celebrities who engage deeply, educate themselves, and amplify grassroots voices can make a real difference. Those who treat activism as a branding exercise? The public is getting better at spotting them — and calling them out.   

Gadot’s Walk of Fame protest is just the latest reminder of how blurred the lines have become between fame and activism. Even those who don’t deliberately seek the role of activist can find themselves embroiled in political controversy. The question isn’t just whether celebrities should engage in activism — it’s whether they can ever avoid it.