The truth is that they have hundreds of thousands of followers on the networks and that, therefore, their fame arises precisely from the level of identification that they accumulate after years of work and collecting the affection of their followers .
These days I have received, through different channels, the emphatic and argued statements of Javier Bardem in San Sebastian on the situation in Gaza. Chronicles of the electoral campaign in the United States do not fail to mention the support of this or that famous personality for Kamala Harris or, to a lesser extent, for Trump. The echoes of the words of Mbappé or Thuram warning of the dangers of a triumph of the far right in the recent French elections still resonate. And if we go back in time a little, we will remember Rosalía’s tweet against Vox before the 2019 general elections. And so we could continue.
It is not that these statements generally provide new or absolutely original content on each of the topics discussed. What is important is not the words or arguments used. The important thing is who says it. Someone who is enormously well-known in his specific field (cinema, music, football, etc.) but who, at the same time and precisely because of his relevance, obtains his opinions on aspects which are not those of his field to cross the wall of indifference or information overload.
In the current tangle of information, news, events, hoaxes and leaks, it is increasingly difficult for any citizen to clarify what is happening. The amount of data and opinion available does not guarantee, but rather makes difficult, the creation of a reliable composition on any aspect of the news. It is necessary to have criteria to distinguish what is incidental from what is substantial, packaging from what is truly important. In this difficult task of control, prior knowledge of the reliability of the source, of the background of the person giving his opinion or his position, in short, of the reputation of the informant, helps a lot.
Famous people, celebrities in all fields of activity, enjoy an undeniable legacy, which is the simple fact of being known and therefore overcoming the barrier of anonymity. But, obviously, being famous as an actor, footballer, singer or member of the jet set is not the same as being famous in the field of theoretical physics or sustainable architecture. Some are known transversally, in any social sphere, the others are known in their specific field of activity. The question we can ask is whether, beyond these sporadic appearances where they intervene on current issues, celebrities can end up becoming a key resource for modifying or altering the course of significant public policies. or to prevent the dangers of a certain political orientation.
Celebrities have a key resource: their reputation. Some analysts speak of “epistemic power”, referring, on the one hand, to their capacity to attract the general attention of citizens and the media who quickly echo their opinions when they leave their natural habitat. And, on the other hand, to the immediate halo of sympathy that is generated among their followers, which gives them credibility and ensures a positive emotional response.
At a time when the credibility and recognition levels of politicians are not at their best, and where distrust is growing in the ability of democracy to deliver on its promises, the possibility of having famous figures is a temptation for any organization that aims to reach a distant audience. policy to promote new policies or modify existing ones. Indeed, we remember the importance for organizations like Amnesty International or Greenpeace to have, at the time, the support and commitment of Princess Diana in her campaign against antipersonnel mines. Chef James Oliver has successfully improved the quality of school menus in the UK. Also Bono, very active in the fight against AIDS or in other international campaigns. A recent and significant case in Spain is the great impetus that the musician and pianist James Rhodes gave, with his personal testimony and commitment, to the campaign for the approval of the Child Protection Law. On issues related to the climate emergency, actors like Leonardo Di Caprio have maintained a consistent and committed stance in recent years.
More recently, we are seeing how those who some define as “micro-celebrities” or “Internet celebrities” in reference to Youtubers and TikTokers, are also achieving significant impacts. This has happened, for example, in topics like “Black Lives Matter” in the United States, and we see it here when they attract politicians into their programs and broadcasts who thus seek to reach unfavorable young sectors. to connecting with the media. the political scene in their usual formats.
What we can ask ourselves is whether this charisma or halo of influence which explains the ability of celebrities to influence policies can be considered legitimate, since it does not respond to any attribute of formal representation of citizens. But on the contrary, the truth is that they have hundreds of thousands of followers on the networks and that, therefore, their fame arises precisely from the level of identification that they accumulate after years of work and collection of affection of their followers. Or, in some cases, his authority derives from his own personal experience (James Rhodes) or his professional ability in what he advocates (James Oliver).
In the analyzes carried out on the role of icons or celebrities on the political scene, it has been highlighted that over the last century and as a general trend, we have moved away from a logic of “conformism” of celebrities of the political scene of the 60s or 70s, to a logic more of “transformation” or change from the 80s and until today. The globalization of information and a certain “democratization” of foreign policy have allowed these icons to give their opinion on any event, thus reinforcing their cosmopolitan role. What is unclear is whether the focus is on the person or the topic they are discussing. Ultimately, it may be the increasing personalization of politics and the difficulties politicians face in reaching audiences increasingly reluctant to tune into debates that are unlike them. In this scenario, using celebrities is an obvious temptation. They do not have the power to change things alone, but they can express or personalize the power of many.
