The Social Responsibility of Artists

In his inaugural address, President John F. Kennedy said the timeless words: "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." This phrase became the founding concept of the Peace Corps when Kennedy created the service organization in 1961. President Kennedy's message was simple-- the citizens of a healthy democracy must all have a hand in the continuation, cultivation, and improvement of their nation. The purpose of the State is to provide services to the populace that individuals and collectives would be unable - or hard-pressed - to provide otherwise. However, the citizens of the State must not become complacent in their receivership of State services. A populace that has no hand in the administration of the State will quickly become disillusioned, and a cadre of professional politicians will seem very disconnected from the majority of the people. Unfortunately, this can be seen in the considerable political discord that is currently wracking the United States. Although many pundits have argued that the intense political rhetoric that has been seen in the United States since President George W. Bush's reelection (rhetoric which has only intensified since President Obama was elected) is caused by the "24-hour news cycle" and the ever-increasing use of the internet, I believe these are symptoms rather than the underlying cause. The political discord in America is in large part a factor of a populace that is disconnected from the decision making process. Although there is no institutionalized disenfranchisement practiced by the US government any more (at least, not legally), many members of the voting public feel disenfranchised because they have no hand in the production of the services they enjoy. People pay taxes and vote once a year or so, but other than that, they feel no connection to Washington, or even in many cases, their local governments. If we, as a nation, are to reverse this trend of political disillusionment and discord, we must refocus our political culture on "reinfranchising" the millions of Americans who feel as though they have no hand in their government. Although I have never distilled my ideas on this issue to such a degree before writing this essay, I have long struggled with this concept, and how it relates to me, personally.

A couple of years ago, when I was near the end of my undergraduate collegiate career, I was seriously considering joining the Peace Corps, and following President Kennedy's advice. I wanted to "serve my country" in a specific, established way, but I did not (and do not) agree with the purpose of the military, so I saw the Peace Corps as the perfect solution to my desire. I would be able to have a positive influence on people who needed it most, "do good," and serve as an ambassador for the United States of America in other parts of the world. Despite these ideals, when I left school, I decided not to join the Peace Corps and instead devoted my efforts to pursuing a career in acting. Since then, I have struggled with the question of purpose -- not for myself, but how I can marry my desire to achieve personal success in my chosen art form -- performance -- while also "asking what I can do for my country." Essentially, I am facing the age-old question tackled by Chekhov, Sartre, and many others: what is the social responsibility of the artist?

Alright, here's the plan for the rest:

Darwin's Bulldog- Thomas Henry Huxley: THH was essentially a "public intellectual" before the turn of phrase was used. He resolutely defended Darwin's ideas on evolution, and his seminal debate with Samuel Wilberforce led to the wider acceptance of evolution. Essentially, THH used his public persona to reach a wider audience than Darwin was able to with his "Origin of the Species." Although Darwin wrote "Origin" to be accessible to a wide audience, many in England could not read, or did not have enough experience in reading scientific writing to understand Darwin's work. THH spread the word, essentially, by using what amounted to a bully pulpit in a riveting public debate that stole the interest of the public. In the modern era, for better or worse, public intellectuals do not have the same influence that THH had in his day. Fewer people pay attention to public intellectuals, but many many more are interested in the exploits of "celebrities" and the trivia of popular culture. Artists, and perhaps more specifically actors, serve to disseminate ideas and knowledge that would otherwise be unknown to the wider public.

Examples of artists doing what I described: Star Trek The Next Generation, various other science fiction works, Blood Diamond, Amistad, Do the Right Thing, Contact(?), and, older examples, On the Waterfront, Lawrence of Arabia, and even things like Julius Caesar, by Will Shakespeare.

Furthermore, beyond disseminating knowledge and discoveries, the modern artist can give us moral teachings. Many "family movies" have politically correct and non-subversive messages, like "love & friendship" (Toy Story) or "family matters" (The Incredibles). However, there are more subversive messages that have been spread by film and television, like the on-screen kiss between Denzel Washington and Ashley Judd in "The Pelican Brief" or the black presidents in "24." Although Hollywood has often been criticized for either being TOO subversive or not being subversive ENOUGH, it will often surprise us with an unexpected message. We might have a black president because of the messaging from Hollywood over the past decade or so-- that it's ok to have one.

So what should I do about this? Should I keep acting in commercials that push products that I may not agree with on people, with the expectation that it will get me further in my career and be able to do more things that I agree with? What sort of compromises should I be willing to make? How much should I weigh my personal desires with my desire to "do social good?"

Ugh, I don't know. Maybe I'm just selfish. Maybe I'm no better than anyone else. But maybe it doesn't matter.