The Celebrity Response to the Afghanistan Humanitarian Crisis
The Framework
The history of humanitarianism goes hand in hand with the history of raising the voices of celebrities, which only leads to the silencing of the voices of the receivers. The Afghanistan humanitarian crisis is certainly not the only humanitarian crisis to endure celebrity ad campaigns and media driven responses. There is no doubt that popularizing a humanitarian crisis can be important in order ot ensure people are receiving the help they need. However, the ways in which the aid is voiced focuses the attention on the A list celebrity involving themselves in the crisis. In Lilie Chouliaraki’s “The Theatricality of Humanitarianism: A Critique of Celebrity Advocacy,” she postures about two types of celebrity profiles that those at the forefront of aid campaigns fit. The first model is associated with older eras of humanitarianism and is all about the quiet, disassociated celebrity, which she associates with actress Audry Hepburn. The second celebrity model, is one associated with ultra celebritization and exemplified through actress Angelina Jolie.
The Jolie model is equative to the cases of humanitarian aid campaigns seen today. This hyper-celebritization that Chouliaraki names is “an intensification of [the] celebrity persona… and a process of ethicalization that promotes a utilitarian altruism” (Chouliaraki 10). The celebrity and the aid organization play into and reinforce the famous identiy of the celebrity. The intention behind this bolstering is to increase the knowledge of a humanitarian crisis. However, the reality is that it takes the concentration off of the situation and instead widens the reach of the celebrity. On this note, Chouliaraki says this type of response “denies sufferers their own voices” (Chouliaraki 4). When aid organizations promote the celebrity over the crisis, they are telling the receiver that they are not the most important player in this situation. This misguided attention to the celebrity is completely contradictory to the purpose of humanitarianism. It plays into the cycle of selfishness that the organization is the more important than the people in need.
The Connections
The previously mentioned Jennifer Garner ad campaign for the Afghanistan humanitarian crisis provides insight into the ways in which humanitarian organizations shape their own narrative around crises. As images of Garner flash across the screen of her holding children, talking with mothers, and nurturing the population of the shelter, Save the Children is making the Afghanistan crisis about itself. Instead of asking those at the shelter for their stories and experiences, they fly out Garner to tell the world for them. For aid organizations like Save the Children, Afghanistan became another opportunity to capitalize on media attention. Nearly every large news organization spent weeks covering the United States withdrawal from Afghanistan. This attention provided the runway for organizations to capitalize on their roster of celebrities to increase their own needs. Garner’s Afghanistan campaign plays into the Angelina Jolie framework that Chouliaraki details. Save the Children and Garner do not de-celebritize her, but rather “spectacularize suffering” through emphasizing Garner’s presence as a celebrity (Chouliaraki 4). Whether Angelina Jolie, Jennifer Garner, or another massive celebrity, aid organizations focus on getting the right face for their campaign proves that they are more worried about their own appearance than those they claim to help. By spectacularizing the suffering in Afghanistan, people become disconnected from the actual issues the Afghani people face. Although this disconnect can result in people donating or volunteering for an aid organization, it does nothing to address the problems that the Afghanistan people might be suffering that the world does not see or hear about.
The Analysis
Aid organizations are not the only institutions to use the influence of celebrities to increase their own popularity, but when focusing on humanitarian aid, this choice of focusing on the celebrity and organization is hypocritical to the mission of humanitarianism. When claiming to be a humanitarian organization, the institution takes on the definitions and associations that come along with that word. From the celebrity framework and its applications to the Afghanistan humanitarian crisis, it is noticeable that the current definition of humanitarianism is not doing its job in highlighting the needs of the receiver. Instead, the celebrity framework displays that humanitarianism acts as a heavy hand that makes choices that are best for the organizations. In Barnett’s The Empire of Humanity, he says “What humanitarianism could give, humanitarianism could also take away” (Barnett 55). Humanitarian organizations are shaping the language in a way that benefits them. They take away and add to a crisis when it is the right time for them to do so.
When making the decision to promote engagement in a humanitarian crisis through the voice of a celebrity, humanitarian organizations are sending a clear message. That message being that the most important thing to them is not the receivers of aid. With a celebrity at the front of a humanitarian crisis, it actually dehumanizes the people suffering as they are seen as less than the celebrity. As well, it reinforces a cycle of belief that the receiver of aid is in need of a savior and that western organizations and beliefs are the only way to save these people. In reality, the receivers of aid are human beings and deserve to be on an equal footing with their own voice. When aid is centered around helping them, but the receivers of aid are not even being heard, it is not possible for any constructive work to get done.
Humanitarianism Final 