Poor George Clooney. He’s such a busy guy. What with making blockbusters, Nespresso ads and all those mystery women, it’s a wonder the actor has had time to throw himself into the quagmire of Sudan.
South Sudan isn’t doing too well these days. Arguably, the mess is George’s fault. If we hadn’t all suffered the delusion of Sudan’s bright future, we might have been busier dealing with its complex faults. That’s what Daniel Howden insinuates. He takes Clooney (among others) to task now that the South Sudan house of statehood has collapsed faster than Anthony Weiner’s political career. Howden writes that “actors were highly effective at communicating a narrative about the new country that borrowed from a simple script.” That narrative (i.e., all problems were caused by the Wicked Witch of the North) was, unfortunately, “part truth, part wilful misunderstanding” and “deeply flawed”.
Let’s give George some credit. He is not a phoney when it comes to playing savior. He didn’t just show up at a fundraising dinner, or make one self-aggrandizing visit. The man has invested something of himself. He even got arrested for the cause. But there are limits to that credit.
Howden is right to call out the overly simplistic narrative, but let’s not blame actors for the superficial script. As I’ve blogged (e.g. cleansing conflict from the ‘perfect storm’ of factors causing famine in Somalia in 2011), the entire international community – politicians, aid NGO agencies, UN officials – seems dependent upon simple scripts. The only time we embrace complexity is in explaining our failures. (Of course, academics ply a healthy trade in the complexity of places like Sudan, but who really listens to academics besides other academics?).
You can’t sell complexity. No funding, no donations, and no political support. It’s even a hard sell within an agency. Try getting MSF to add some nuance to its analysis of Syria! And maybe that’s not such a bad thing, given the need for action rather than endless deliberation. Complexity is a cousin of perfection – it can be an enemy of the good.
As for Clooney and the celebrification of the aid business, maybe I’ve been wrong in the past. Maybe it’s wrong to begrudge him the attention he and other celebrities get. Sure, NGOs across the spectrum have sold out to the celebrity culture in the hope of increasing attention to our causes. But maybe celebrities really do make more effective champions than we activists. Maybe humans are hardwired to follow the opinions of celebrities. See this article. Apparently, it has to do with something so academic sounding as the anthropology of prestige.
How about that! Evolution has left us biologically inclined to follow the political analysis of celebs, not to mention their fashion tastes, recipes and personal grooming tips. Can somebody please get Miley Cyrus to say something about CAR?