So we're Serving 'Just Deserts'
But will the Celeb 'Block Out' work as intended?
Let them eat cake!
The French Revolution, began in 1789, having been sparked by a combination of factors like economic hardship, food shortages, and a general sense of injustice among the lower and middle classes. Mostly, the monarchy's extravagance and perceived disregard for the plight of the poor were significant grievances that fuelled the revolutionary movement, and so the infamous phrase was born.
Attributed to Marie Antoinette, a former symbol of wealth, opulence and greed, the historical context and origins of this phrase are more complex than a simple quote from the queen. The original French phrase, "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche," or ("Let them eat brioche") is said to have been uttered in response to hearing that the peasants had no bread to eat. The implication is that if the poor couldn't afford bread, they should eat the more expensive and luxurious brioche instead, displaying a profound disconnect with the struggles of the common people and an obliviousness to their most basic needs.
Many claim there is no concrete evidence that Marie Antoinette ever said these words, though the phrase has since become emblematic of the perceived ignorance and frivolity of the French aristocracy leading up to the French Revolution. It encapsulates the idea that the ruling class was out of touch with the suffering of the ‘common people’, a factor that contributed to revolutionary fervour.
21st Century Princess
But a different kind of resistance began just last week, when model and influencer Haley "Baylee" Kalil faced backlash after posting a TikTok video near the Met Gala, lip-syncing to the Marie Antoinette quote. Here, what was to her a seemingly innocent portrayal of a historical ‘icon’ only served as the perfect irony, where her ignorance to the context of this years met gala likened her to the French queen more than anything else. She too displayed a profound disconnect with the struggles of us ‘commoners’ and an obliviousness to the ways in which a lot of us aren’t able to satisfy our basic needs. Extensively, her representation of class inequality helped to further elucidate the dystopian feel of the Met. Whilst pro-Palestinian protestors gathered outside of the event, aiming to advocate for fellow people across the globe, most of the celebrities attending the event were guilty for not utilising their platforms for anything useful. Comparison’s have since begun to swarm the internet drawing connections between Collins’ ‘The Hunger Games’ franchise, with those both attending and tuning in excitedly to the Met as being representative of those living in Panem’s ‘Capitol’, in contrast with hungry and aggravated members of the districts.
Despite clarifying that she wasn't invited to the gala and apologizing for the insensitive use of the audio, her apology didn’t prove satisfactory. Personally, I can’t help but wonder where her PR team was as she contemplated how she was going to show up for this years ‘The Garden of Time’ themed event. I’m sure that when she put on her dress, she never could have predicted how this incident would fuel a movement called the "celebrity blockout," where users block celebrities on social media to reduce their ad revenue, a long overdue response to perceived insensitivity and disconnect from real-world issues.
A Commitment Worthy of our Time?
But critics have been asking about the point of this blockout beyond the performance of integrity, in a similar way to the criticisms hurled at the movement to boycott those companies on the official BDS Boycott list. In modern day society, it’s often that appearing good is prioritised over a real vested interest in socio-political progress. As a result, the potential for the blockout to serve as a tool for ‘virtue signalling’ is worrying to those looking at potentially more effective forms of resistance.
Still, I take issue with that old concept that online activism is inherently useless and performative, and there are real benefits to be had as we make a collective effort to de-pedastalise celebrities we no longer admire.
Initially, the blockout forces celebrities who were willing to overlook their potentially positive impact to use their platforms. Celebrities like Taylor Swift have been named amongst many, who despite having amassed a cult-like following to be ‘feared’, has become too well-known for her inability to consistently display concern for movements that didn’t directly affect her. Similarly, Beyonce has faced becoming part of the 2024 blockout, for similar reasons, especially in contrast to the intentional activism displayed by her sister, Solange.
Where those like the Kardashians have also faced the guillotine, the blockout also serves as a reminder that their self-proclaimed, self-produced fame truly lies in the hands of a deeply unsatisfied majority. Where we’re not able to directly target the varying forms of income that aren’t linked to our attention, the blockout signifies a real effort to strip celebrities of their status’ beyond merely attempting to ‘cancel’ them, a phenomenon which many of us have acknowledged often fails due to it’s inconsistent application, and failure to permeate the minds of those who truly hold the keys to success and wealth.
Where the movement differs from cancellation lies in the fact that despite cancelling celebrities, their videos as well as those videos critiquing them still found a way to land on our ‘For You’ pages. Cancelling somebody never actually interfered with their ability to make money, because ‘all press is good press’ (as the saying goes). By contrast, this new movement outlines an objective to interfere with celebrities’ ability to do what they love most – make money. As mentioned by content creator and Palestinian activist, Salma on TikTok, ‘Attention is the most important currency’ in this day an age. This is especially true when one considers that the monetisation on popular social media and content creation platforms typically comes from the number of views, likes, shares, and comments on each video.
There are a number of suggestions that people have theorised when it comes to enacting this blockout most effectively. There are those that suggest we all pick a celebrity each week to block on all social media platforms, as a way to ensure the most impact. Then there are those who have provided a list of celebrities to block all at once. I have seen those videos more specifically aimed at monetary interference, which emphasise the potential effectiveness in also blocking the accounts of celebrity businesses, like ‘Skims’ for example. I saw one video where an employee well versed in brand longevity, discussed the grave impact for companies where we simply place countless items in our baskets, and refrain from buying in order to skew results for the popularity of certain items, as well as making them continuously unavailable for purchasing- affecting the amount of money companies can make from our purses directly.
Mostly in good faith, I believe that movements like this for once demonstrate our willingness to sacrifice our perpetual need to idolise in our society for important causes. Over time, we have become far too used to the behaviour of worshipping those who not only lack consideration for the general population, but would actually see a lot of people suffer if it meant making even just a dollar from bodies deceased. At this point, we feel as though we need distractions from our daily lives as conditions continue to deteriorate, where celebrities remind us of the notion that ‘you could do it too!’. As long as we’ve clung to ‘American Dream’-like notions of success, instead of recognising where we actually bear more similarities to those we advocate for, we’ve been all-too susceptible to manipulation.
And yet, amidst the excitement that comes from the promise of a new era of change; (“Une Révolution!”), it is important to ensure this movement doesn’t fall victim to sensationalism and romanticisation.
The Blockout is Not…
…The Pinnacle of Activism
It might feel as though blocking celebrities grants us power at the end of our fingertips. The notion that every block brings us one step closer to liberating the people of Palestine, Congo or Sudan has helped to restore some semblance of hope for those who feel entirely powerless. We imagine ourselves to be part of Katniss’s rebellion, on the cusp of overthrowing a tyrannical power. But when I saw people comparing Bella Hadid to the fictional character, I began to question whether or not we’ve merely transferred our energy from idolising one crop of celebrities, to idolising another. The romanticisation of activism is one of our biggest failures. We saw aesthetic collages post 2020 with the BLM movement, and now, as Hunger Games x Palestine edits are being made on TikTok, it’s clear we’ve lost our aim.
… All that it takes
As much as I believe in the theoretical use of these movements, it would be naïve to assume that removing celebrities from their positioning in society will change everything on it’s own. The movement should absolutely be seen in conjunction to other (more impactful) forms of resistance. As you pride yourself for having ‘done your part’ by blocking celebrities on TikTok lists, you should still be contacting your local MP’s or state representatives. As we shame celebrities for failing to use their resources for important causes, we too should be making an effort to donate money (where possible). Where we’re looking out for the next celebrity ‘spotted!’ at the Met despite protests taking place right beside them, we too should be attending protests taking place most locally, with the next British national protests taking place on May 15th and 18th. In the middle of this seemingly positive push for change, there will always be those ready and waiting to pick apart at what remains of our attention, utilising a new fury to increase their own online engagement. It’s worth asking even those less widely known influencers, what their contribution is beyond regurgitating the same lists over and over. Whilst it’s true that increased awareness is never a bad thing, we can see too evidently the form of opportunism that’s taking place when those without any other information on geo-political issues begin to advocate for the blocking of celebrities that for all we know might have pissed them off for other more personal, more specific reasons.
… Temporary.
I think it’s also important to emphasise the key nature of blocking an account online. Where we could simply ‘unfollow’, blocking signifies an act that should be irreversible, with our eyes diverted away for the foreseeable. The aim shouldn’t be to get our favourite celebrities to speak out against injustices and then proceed to unblock them, because not only does this reward a basic exhibition of human decency, but also demonstrates how even in our resistance, we’re so easily manipulated. In the 7 months of an ongoing genocide so many failed to speak out against Israel’s occupation, and actually showed up in support of it’s sentiment (until the stability of their current lifestyles was threatened), at which point they chose to illuminate us all to the ‘recently discovered’ cause for concern. And my mind goes to Brittany Broski…
So What Now?
Still there remains an importance message to take from the blockout. Here we can see clearly that celebrity culture is dangerous so long as people are revered for anything other than their contribution to society beyond just entertaining the masses and illustrating a dream just out of reach for too many of us. Generally, I’ll never be able to comprehend arguments strictly against this movement rather than those who call for its refinement. After all, we shouldn’t really be using our energy to debate whether or not celebrities who have revealed themselves time and time again deserve our attention (this should be a no-brainer). The complexity here lies in our application of this movement compared with other forms of resistance, in addition to our ability to remain focused on its key objectives.
Those ‘commoners’ living in 18th century France understood the importance of consistency in their approach. They didn’t decide to romanticise or revere members of the bourgeoisie who decided to stand amongst them, and instead chose to emphasise the ways in which the presence of such distinct upper and lower classes was the real target, with those like Ms. Antoinette merely serving as a representative of this divide.
Also, I’d be lying if I said that this celebrity blockout isn’t as amusing as it is effective. As scores of celebrities scramble to make their own videos, speaking to an audience of ghosts, I’m reminiscent of Antoinette’s own end, where her eventual decapitation in 1793 silenced her all the same.
Asisa
Links to donate
Palestine
https://crisisrelief.un.org/opt-crisis UN Crisis Relief “Managed by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) on behalf of the Humanitarian Coordinator, your donation plays a crucial role in alleviating the immediate needs of those affected by crises in the region”.
https://www.unfpa.org/donate/Gaza/1 UNFPA for women and girls in Gaza.
https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org
MSF ‘Doctors without borders’ to help doctors on the ground to deliver ‘immediate’ and ‘indiscriminate’ care.
Congo
https://www.savethechildren.org/us/where-we-work/democratic-republic-of-congo#:~:text=Save%20the%20Children%20and%20its,today%20can%20help%20save%20lives Save the Children (and local partners) to support sexual assault survivors in the DRC
https://donate.unhcr.org/int/en/democratic-republic-congo-emergency UNHCR to help Congolese Refugees
Sudan
Speak it... the met gala has always been out of touch, even drawing comparisons to the opulence of the gilded age following last years. It's beyond insane that people are living it up at an event that costs 75, 000 to enter while others are starving a few streets down and thousands are being killed in an ongoing genocide. And then the 'let them eat cake' thing? I mean, how shameless can they get?...
Thank you for speaking up on this issue and bringing awareness to not only the suffering in Gaza but reprimand to the disgusting culture in America that enables indifference towards it.