Photo from The Sunday Times
On the night of the US presidential debate, global singer-songwriter Taylor Swift made a rare move: She announced her support for Vice President and Democratic nominee Kamala Harris. “I’m voting for @kamalaharris because she fights for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them,” Swift wrote to her 284 million followers. “I think she is a steady-handed, gifted leader and I believe we can accomplish so much more in this country if we are led by calm and not chaos.” She also approved Harris’ running mate Tim Walz, praising his advocating for “LGBTQ+ rights, IVF, and a woman’s right to her own body for decades.” The pop star seemingly took a jab at Republican VP nominee J.D. Vance, signing off as a “Childless Cat Lady”.
Swift’s endorsement might appear uncharacteristic for the pop phenomenon, who has largely refrained from making direct political statements. Consequently, Swift has come under fire for her silence, with fans imploring her to use her platform for political and social causes. Her stance shifted during the 2018 US midterm elections when she directly condemned Republican candidate Marsha Blackburn and encouraged her fans to vote.
Her 2020 documentary, Miss Americana, sheds further light on Swift’s decision to finally speak out. More than anything, it’s a battle between civic engagement versus the risk of fanbase alienation. Swift mentions how the cancellation of the Dixie Chicks influenced her, as a fellow artist with country roots, to adopt a more placid attitude.
In terms of politics, this is the most straightforward Swift has ever been. Still, some remain skeptical, given Swift’s history of addressing issues that pertain to her interests in an inconsistent and discrepant manner. Notably, Swift fiercely supported the LGBTQ+ community during her 2019 Lover era. Since then, her activism has mostly faded out. Similar patterns have led some to level accusations of performative activism at Swift.
The discourse surrounding Swift isn’t limited to the songstress alone; it extends to a broader conversation on celebrity activism as a whole.
For Western audiences, it seems as though more than being good at your craft is needed. Instead, the public wants conscientious, vocal celebrities. For those in the public eye, advocacy is another civic duty. Simultaneously, speaking up doesn’t seem to be enough. Celebrities are pressured to follow up their talk with (preferably monetary) action or otherwise be labeled a superficial hypocrite.
South Korea takes the opposite stance. In politics, the difference is more prominent. During election season, celebrities often encourage voting through social media. Still, they are careful not to wear colors or strike poses evocative of particular parties or candidates, even after the amendment of the Public Official Election Act. Last year, singer Yuna Kim of Jaurim was criticized for her comments over a Fukushima wastewater release, a politically divisive issue. In 2011, the broadcasting network MBC even banned the regular appearances of ‘socialtainers’, or celebrities invested in social issues. Fears of being blacklisted or canceled make any open endorsement of a candidate a scarce occurrence.
So how should we perceive celebrity activism? Do these public figures have a responsibility to stay neutral? Or should they wield their massive following and influence? The right to have and express one’s opinion is one of the pillars of democracy. Celebrities are no exception. Promoting freedom of expression is an essential step in facilitating diverse discussions. Simultaneously, the impact of their words cannot be blindly dismissed. Some express concerns that celebrity activism could further fuel ‘fandom politics’ and political polarization in South Korea. Public figures must consider possible repercussions whilst contributing thoughtful insights.
And as for the general public? Refining an identity as both an individual and a group is critical. As a society, we should continue to promote freedom of expression. On an individual level, we should be wary of extreme mob mentality and fandom politics. By maintaining this delicate balance, we can foster a platform for activism from all members of society.
Comments