Are you expecting too much from Taylor Swift?The downside of celebrity endorsement

In a world where we often look to celebrities for guidance on everything from fashion to political beliefs, we face a strange paradox. Taylor Swift's recent criticism of her silence on the Gaza war highlights a broader issue. It's that we have unrealistic expectations of celebrities to be omniscient, infallible beacons of morality and knowledge. This is a subject worth exploring, not just for the reputation of one pop star, but also for what it reveals about our collective relationship to fame and responsibility.

Like many people, I was initially disappointed by Swift's silence at the beginning of a major global crisis. I found myself waiting unreasonably for her attitude, as if her words would affect the outcome of the situation. It's almost funny now when I remember how I boycotted her music for a short time because of her anger. But this feeling was not unique to me. It was a widespread phenomenon and highlighted the scrutiny we place on public figures.

Over time, my perspective evolved. The persistent demands for public figures to comment on all the injustices and conflicts in the world began to seem unreasonable. From the Darfur genocide to the murder of Alexei Navalny, the list is endless. Where do we draw the line? When did we start expecting singers and actors to also be geopolitical analysts and human rights experts?

While many are quick to encourage figures like Taylor Swift to lend their voices to important global discussions, a worrying pattern is emerging behind the scenes. It's about celebrities navigating the murky waters of complex debates with limited knowledge. Take, for example, Billie Eilish's fashion choice at the Oscars: a red hand pin. This wasn't just an accessory. It is deeply engraved with the tragic history of the lynching and mutilation of two Israelis in 2000. That begs the question. Did Eilish know the profound story this symbol held? This moment is a time when celebrities seek advocacy and public platforms, especially when it intersects with highly sensitive historical and political narratives. It is a stark reminder of the delicate balance that must be struck between the grave responsibilities of exercise.

America's celebrity culture, in which public figures are elevated to god-like status, plays an important role in this phenomenon. They are infallible and their opinions are held sacred. This idolatry is not only unfair to the celebrities themselves, who are just humans after all, but it also undermines the opinions of actual experts on these subjects. Prioritizing the appointment of celebrities over those with lived experience and expertise has a detrimental effect on the complexity of these issues.

We cannot ignore that gender dynamics are involved. Female celebrities in particular are under undue pressure to speak out, reflecting broader societal expectations that women are inherently nurturing or morally superior. However, when they do speak out, they often face harsher backlash than men. This double standard reveals a disturbing undercurrent of sexism in our cultural discourse.

In an ideal world, we would be able to use our platforms to highlight important issues without expecting celebrities to provide all the answers. For example, it could expand the work of NGOs, activists, and experts who are directly involved in every international incident, rather than issuing statements. This approach focuses attention on those who know the most, as well as recognizing the limits of their expertise.

As a society, we must reevaluate our obsession with celebrity culture and recognize the limits of looking to celebrities for guidance on complex issues. This does not mean that celebrities cannot or should not speak out about matters that affect them personally or are familiar to them. It's entirely appropriate for someone like Olivia Rodrigo to support pro-choice initiatives or for Taylor Swift to support political candidates in her home country. These actions are based on personal values ​​and citizen participation, which is different from commenting on international conflicts without a deep understanding of their nuances.

In endorsing this nuanced approach, we are not saying that public figures should be silent on all matters of public concern. Instead, we are asking for a change in how we, as a public, perceive and respond to involvement in social and political issues. By adjusting our expectations, we can foster a healthier, more informed public debate that prioritizes substance over the glamor of star power.

The ultimate goal should be to create a more empathetic and informed society that values ​​expertise and genuine activism over celebrity endorsements. By encouraging celebrities to use their platforms responsibly and directing our attention to where they can bring about real change, we can develop a more nuanced understanding of global issues. Take a step forward. This is not just about relieving celebrities of undue burdens. It's about empowering all of us to seek out and elevate the voices that matter most.

Paula Kweskin is a human rights lawyer and founder of The Collective.a grassroots organization dedicated to fostering interfaith dialogue on international women's rights issues.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own.