A few days before the untimely passing of pop star Liam Payne, his ex-fiancée Maya Henry spoke extensively about the abuse and manipulation that she was subjected to by Payne during their relationship. Following his death, more claims surfaced of Payne's unethical conduct, including allegations of using his celebrity status to solicit intimate photos from underage girls. Despite the seriousness of these accusations, Payne’s legacy quickly became reframed by his cultural contributions. This tendency to pedestalise celebrities due to their perceived contributions to society’s cultural capital reveals the superficiality of social media activism by allowing them to evade scrutiny and accountability simply because they are viewed as symbols of success and nostalgia.
Another extreme of social media activism is the vilification of celebrities, which diverts attention from constructive dialogue about the larger structures enabling misconduct—a trend evident in cases like Woody Allen and Harvey Weinstein. Both vilification and pedestalisation of celebrities thus emerge as two sides of the superficiality of this online activism.
A larger pitfall of both sides of online activism is its objectification of celebrities. By failing to make space for a nuanced understanding of issues regarding morality, accountability and enabling structures, they strip away the individual complexity of the person they either pedestalise or vilify. When public figures are reduced to mere symbols of success and nostalgia, calls for accountability are drastically reduced on the internet. Taking the example of Payne’s legacy being shaped by his cultural contributions rather than his misconduct being addressed, we can establish the role fans play in deciding how a famous artist is generally perceived. Fans who form parasocial relationships with celebrities are less likely to acknowledge their shortcomings and misconduct, as it threatens their perception of the celebrity. When Payne’s fans were asked about their reaction to the allegations of manipulation and abuse against him, they stated that they had complicated feelings about it, but maintained that they look up to him as his music played a vital role in shaping their personalities. This fosters a double standard in society which is furthered by social media activism, where fame becomes a defence against assuming accountability for unethical actions.
Conversely, when these same figures face public condemnation, they are recast as embodiments of unethical behaviour, serving as symbols of wrongdoing rather than individuals shaped by a complex mix of personal choices and systemic enablers. It can be argued that social media’s bias towards vilifying the celebrity over acknowledging the role of larger enabling structures is the opacity of these structures. Targeting a well-known figure creates a clearer, simplified narrative with a “villain,” which is more likely to gain traction and prompt immediate reactions than discussions around institutional reforms. This demonisation of a celebrity is commonly followed by calls for their ‘cancellation’ without nuance or understanding, thus creating an environment focused on punishment rather than constructive dialogue.
Social media outrage that is focused on the vilification of a celebrity due to their wrongdoings works well as a ‘quick fix’ in tackling issues with respect to unethical conduct but overlooks the larger structures that enable such misconduct. In the case of Woody Allen, when allegations of his sexual misconduct and abuse were brought to the forefront by his daughter, the internet rose up against the consumption of his work that featured angles of sexual dysfunction, as seen in his most popular work, Annie Hall. However, even as he was vilified by many for his individual actions, little heed was paid to the industry which encouraged him to depict such topics derived from his personal life unheeded due to what they deemed his creative genius.
Harvey Weinstein, another perpetrator of sexual abuse and harassment in Hollywood, operated in an industry where coercion and exploitation of aspiring actors were often dismissed as part of the “casting couch” culture. Vilifying Weinstein in isolation missed acknowledging how this culture had become embedded within Hollywood and perpetuated by many beyond just Weinstein, fostering an environment where his behaviour went unchecked for years. It was only when a large number of women began to speak up about their individual experiences of sexual assault and harassment in the workplace that people began to call for a change in the system, rather than merely holding one individual accountable for their wrongdoings.
The judging of a celebrity, who has been reduced to a symbol of either success or immorality, feeds into a system where we passively target those who are easily recognisable yet disconnected from us. Not only do we mentally separate them from the rest of humanity, but also foster a culture where the meting out of extreme treatment, such as pedestalisation or vilification is normalised. The opacity of structures that allow the misconduct of celebrities is an added obstacle to bringing about substantial change.
There is, in fact, little value in preaching about the failure of social media activism, when it is we, the average internet users, who peddle superficiality by failing to hold one another accountable and choosing the easier option of targeting recognisable persons, instead of shifting our focus to enabling structures at play.
(Edited by Noor Sabharwal and Srijana Siri)
Comments