I'm greatly looking forward to our next class as we'll discuss the role of celebrities in international relations. During the last class I had briefly brought up the perspective of viewing religious leaders as celebrities and I'd like to preemptively reflect upon that idea.
Both readings on celebrity diplomacy questioned how seriously we should take celebrity diplomats as well as examined their legitimacy and lack of accountability to a trusted measure. These diplomats seem to embody a public phenomenon that has great capacity to affect change but lacking a perfect solution to the problems they confront. In addition, they lack personal credibility as they are self-appointed, not elected and often lead very different lives in the spotlight and out of it.
Religious leaders have the same capacity as celebrity diplomats as well as the same shortcomings when compared to political diplomats. Lets look at the most famous religious leader as an example: The Catholic Pope.
Pope Francis is the current leader of the Roman Catholic Church which is the largest christian church in the world with over 1Billion adherents. Catholics are expected to be represented in every country on every continent of the world crossing over all living generations, age groups and genders. One could easily argue the same for Bono and his U2 fans but not necessarily the same of a diplomat such as UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. The Pope resides in Vatican City which holds a population of less than 1000 people yet receives millions of dollars on a weekly basis from adherents around the world. Such an income measures Vatican City as the richest state in the world. This money is spent in support of churches and their members throughout the world as well as the Pope's doctrines, usually expressed in the form of encyclicals. In May 2015 for example, Pope Francis published an encyclical 'On Care for our Common Home' which addressed issues of climate change the the moral obligation catholics and non-catholics alike should feel towards protecting our planet. Such a profound document, received and revered by a network of 1Billion plus "followers" around the world was a huge catalyst for the eventual support of the November 2015 UN Climate Change Conference in Paris. Other similar systems of influence played a large part in the normalization of relations between the US and Cuba. These are just a few of the international causes one Catholic Pope has touched upon during his lifetime. However, Popes have been involved in international affairs since the birth of the church in the 1st century.
Of course, not everybody believes what a Catholic Pope says is truth. Many believe their words are mislead and utterly false. The Pope is claimed to be the highest figure on a strict hierarchy to God within the Catholic tradition. This means that he is really only accountable to God and no earthly being. In addition, it is by the same unaccountable grace of God that legitimizes every Papal election through the votes of fellow Cardinals. In addition, the very doctrine of the Christian tradition is that one must have faith it its truth because that truth cannot be proved to a human. As a result, the world has a completely accepted system whereas a single man leads over a billion people and the wealthiest state in the world while basing his claim on an unprovable idea. How can so many people support the legitimacy of a man through mere faith? Does it matter if what he teaches leads to a diplomatic nightmare if such a significant part of the world's population believe he is held accountable to higher power that only reveals itself to the Pope? They have the capacity but do they always have a solution that everybody would agree upon? I don't think so.
This is just one example that we can parallel with the criticism and praise of a celebrity diplomat such as Bono. There are many more including the birth of the Church of the Latter Day Saints, the rise of ISIS, etc. In class I had specifically mentioned the Ukrainian Orthodox Chruch's participation in the Euromaidan revolution in 2013. If anybody is interested in reading more about the social influences of the Orthodox Churches throughout the history of Ukraine, here is a great article: http://euromaidanpress.com/2016/03/23/the-church-in-the-bloodlands/#arvlbdata
Katherine, I love this post. I think you and I have both done work engaging with faith leaders in development work at one time (or I may be mixing your bio with someone else's bio). Also, I've got a lot of Orthodox colleagues who were very engaged in Euromaidan, so I perked up in class when you mentioned that.
ReplyDeleteThe pope is such an interesting example of a "celebrity diplomat." In some ways he is a real diplomat, the head of a real state that has ambassadors and functions like a state. As you mentioned, some see him as an ambassador of God's will on earth, and his words have such sway and influence with so many around the world as a result. The creation care/climate change encyclical was a real catalyst for change at a macro and local level. I know of some climate change mitigation programs in Latin America that use this encyclical as a guiding document for all that they do.
From class this week, I've been thinking a lot about role definition, and I think this is a uniqueness that the Pope has versus other traditional celebrities. His primary job is to "represent Christ's love and concern for every single individual" according to one Catholic website. He's got a moral mandate, at least from his followers. His job is not to entertain, but to advise and guide. Speaking from that place and that role is such a different place than people who's job is to entertain and are paid millions of dollars to do so. I think that's where his platform gets it's impact, and what makes him distinct.
Erica, I would love to grab a coffee with you in DC one day and talk about your work with faith leaders. It sounds like we have similar passions (faith-based & international relations) but very different career paths.
ReplyDeleteYour comment about the Pope is a good point and I think we've run into yet another word that needs to be defined before we can move forward: celebrity. Do celebrities need to be entertainers or just well known and famous? I lean towards the latter definition as I often use the term celebrity to talk about a wide range of people. I.e. Musicians, Actors, Politicians, Scientists, and sometimes even just a friend. I think it all depends on the context. I could say that he became an instant celebrity at the party this past weekend when he showed up with cuban cigars.
Of course, our texts were talking about mainly musicians and actors as celebrity diplomats but I think their objections to the work of the celebrities I mention would remain the same depending on the context. For example, if John Nash decided to visit a refugee camp and make a big fuss about the kids all needing to learn math when none of them have enough clean water to drink or food for breakfast, his celebrity status would be harmful in that it doesn't focus on the important issues.
Religious leaders are often only celebrities in their traditions and/or regionally located congregations. In addition, the issues they address don't need to be international disasters. They can be local conflicts. Therefore, I think my argument about the Pope's celebrity status would still holds true with other faith leaders.
Thanks for the great conversation, Erica! I think this is such an interesting subject.
Katherine, I enjoyed reading you post and think you are exactly right, that religious leaders have long played a part in international events and affairs, and for the most part are held in high esteem regardless of the positive or negative influence that they have. They should not be treated differently than celebrity diplomats - they too should have appropriate training. And since you mentioned the Pope, it's been interesting as the newest Pope has gotten way more involved in politics, such as calling Turkey's killing of the Armenians a genocide. All this is to say, it's an important point that religious leaders have a large following like celebrities, and are they doing good or not is an important question.
ReplyDelete