Conclusion
[29] While reflecting on the relationship
between celebrities and politics, sociologists David S. Meyer and Joshua
Gamson concluded, "[t]he resources that celebrities bring to bear in
social movement struggles do not generally include citizen education or
detailed political analysis" (Meyer and Gamson 1995, 202). In essence,
few celebrities have the educational and political skills that would
allow them to do sustained, in-depth and nuanced presentations.
Certainly this conclusion gains support from reading a CSCE transcript
in which the Scientology celebrities floundered for answers to members
of Congress about why Germany appeared to be so hostile to that
particular group (Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe 1997,
16-17).[x]
[30] If we can overlook these floundering
responses, and if we put aside the unsuccessful campaign that attempted
to link the condition of contemporary German Scientologists with pre-war
German Jews, then observers of Washington politics must give credit to
the partial effectiveness of Scientology’s negotiation and celebrity
lobbying efforts. Its negotiation of an IRS settlement has proven
enormously valuable to the organization’s image, and it is doubtful that
Scientology’s stars would have gained access to governmental elites
without it. With that charitable status in place, Scientology and its
celebrities apparently applied pressure on the Department of State,
gained access to key State Department officials, motivated the U.S.
Trade Representative (with Sonny Bono’s assistance) to undertake a key
copyright issue with Sweden (Bardach 1999, 91; Heintz 1997), won key
congressional members to its causes, and even gained entry into the
Clinton White House. Taken together, these achievements bespeak an
organization that had learned how to make Washington listen.
[31] While some Hollywood celebrities gain
political access through their financial contributions, only a few
prominent Scientologists show up on politicians’ lists as major
contributors. For example, Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman-perhaps
Hollywood’s highest-profile Scientology couple until their recent
divorce proceedings cast her commitment in doubt-contributed $58,000 to
various Democratic causes, including $14,000 to Hilary Clinton’s
successful Senatorial campaign (von Rimscha 2000). Scientologist Mimi
Rogers attended a $5,000-a-person dinner/fund-raiser for Clinton in
September 1998 (Weinraub 1998), and Travolta introduced President
Clinton at a $25,000-a-plate fundraiser in August 2000 (Kennedy 2000:2).
An inside-the-beltway Washington lawyer and Scientologist, John Coale,
donated at least $30,000 to various Democratic causes, "including the
Democratic National Committee and Vice President Al Gore’s political
action committee" (Jacoby 1998:5; Hess 1999, 74). He and his wife (CNN
legal commentator, lawyer, and Scientologist Greta Van Susteren)
attended a state dinner for the Italian Prime Minister, and Van Susteren
sat next to First Lady Hilary Clinton (Jacoby 1998, 5). No evidence,
exists, however, that Cruise, Rogers, Coale, or Van Susteren have tried
to transform their financial clout and contacts into Scientology
lobbying opportunities. More interesting is that fact that, all on the
same day (July 2, 1998), ten prominent Scientologists donated a total of
$7,400 to Congressman Benjamin A. Gilman’s coffer-three months before
he signed on as a co-sponsor to Matt Salmon’s House of Representatives
bill that was critical of Germany’s protection of religious freedom (see
The Center for Responsive Politics 1999). Financial interests, however,
may be a factor that helps to explain the Scientology celebrities’
access.
[32] Not only does the Department of State
have a mandate to monitor human rights (including religious human
rights) issues in countries around the world, it also seeks to protect
American financial interests abroad. Seen in this context, Germany’s
firm stand against Scientology combined religious human rights concerns
with financial protection of America’s major export-entertainment. Corea
caught the ear of politicians and State Department officials with his
claims of financial loss due to the cancellation of German shows, and
Travolta (along with fellow Scientologist Cruise) had been the subject
of a movie boycott. Hayes had not ‘suffered’ at the hands of German
officials, but perhaps Scientology officials thought that his status as a
visible minority (an African-American) gave him a platform to discuss
alleged discrimination. In any case, the withdrawal of state funding for
Corea and the (albeit failed) boycott of a Travolta movie gave the
stars issues in which they could "legitimately claim standing or stake"
(Meyer and Gamson 1995, 201).
[33] Finally, worth remembering is that
members of Congress and the State Department grew up with these
Hollywood personalities. Travolta has been a presence in the American
pop culture scene since the 1970s, starring in numerous television and
movie roles with a rejuvenated career in the 1990s. Hayes’s major
musical hit, "Shaft," is instantly recognizable and still receives
occasional radio airtime, and Corea has been making music for decades.
For a generation of Americans who have grown up with television and
radio, these three celebrities are familiar figures who, in various
ways, have been in people’s lives for a long time. Indeed, some
baby-boomers associate them with crucial moments in their own young
adult lives. Because of this pop-culture, media-generated notoriety, it
is not surprising that Americans-specifically American politicians and
government officials-would give them special access. Indeed, Scientology
officials count on them doing so, and thus far the actions of D.C.
decision-makers have proven them right.
[34] On a practical level, perhaps the most
significant question that this article generates is whether the
influence of Scientology’s celebrities was indeed part of a larger
pattern of accessibility that Hollywood experienced because of systemic
predilections involving media, money, and political power in the
American political system, or instead was a temporary window of
opportunity fostered by the social climate of the Clinton
administration. Cultural studies theorists who view celebrities and
politicians as constructing "public subjectivities to house the popular
will" (Marshall 1997, 204) undoubtedly see the infusion of celebrities
into politics as a reality of post-modern life. In, however, the
post-9/11 realities of a nervous America led by George W. Bush, one
cultural commentator reflects, "[t]he whole fusion thing [between
Hollywood and Washington] seems dated suddenly.... [W]hat the public
wants now are supercompetent technocrats with no discernible private
lives who sublimate their libidos by plotting strategy instead of
parading them on cable [television]" [Kirn 2002, 12]). For many people,
world events may have become more gripping than entertainment, so
celebrities may find fewer politicians and smaller audiences for their
opinions on pressing issues of the day.
Notes
[i] By "cultural elites" I mean people whose
relationships to various media give them significant impact upon
societies and/or cultures, especially in areas involving styles, tastes,
and entertainment.
[ii] The best known celebrity among American
federal politicians was Ronald Reagan, and a celebrity-turned-politician
who had taken Scientology courses and remained a supporter of some of
its causes was the late Congressman Sonny Bono [Bardach 1999, 90-92])
[iii] Resource mobilization theory identifies
the ways in which organizations acquire and utilize a wide variety of
assets (such as time, wealth, talent, labour etc.) in efforts to reach
their goals while depriving their opponents of them. By the late 1970s
it has usurped relative deprivation as the dominant paradigm for
interpreting social movements. In recent years, new social movement
theory has been among its most vocal challengers, yet some researchers
have moved resource mobilization theory into areas such as Internet
battles (Peckham 1998)and globalization (Kent 1999a; 2001c).
[iv] Most of this material is housed in a
research collection that I oversee, although a great deal of it is
available on the Internet.
[v] In secret committee negotiations that
transpired over two years and that operated "outside of normal agency
procedures," Scientologists and IRS officials reached an agreement that
granted the organization tax-exempt status after the organization agreed
to pay $12.5 million for unspecified reasons to the federal government,
and Scientology agreed to drop 2300 lawsuits that its members had
launched against the revenue department (International Association of
Scientologists, [1994?]). These and other aspects of the agreement,
which undermined a string of court decisions against Scientology’s tax
exemption efforts, remained confidential until The Wall Street Journal
posted a leaked version of the document on the Internet (Franz 1997;
MacDonald 1997).
[vi] Some North American scholars see
Germany’s position differently. Two Canadian authors explain German
hostility toward Scientology as the result of a "lack of empirical
research coupled with hasty theological judgements based on limited
texts" interpreted by church-affiliated anti-cultists who often enjoy
special relationships with the state (Hexham and Poewe,1999, 210, 222).
Taking a different approach, an American law student argued, "the
majority of Germans perceive Scientology as not fitting traditional
religious norms and as perhaps unworthy of protection" (Moseley 1997,
1169).
[vii] It is difficult to obtain information
about the results of Scientology’s Albanian efforts, although one source
indicates that Albania banned Scientology "in the wake of a corruption
scandal" (Morvant 1996).
[viii] RPFs operate in and on Scientology
property in at least three California locations, plus at locations in
Clearwater (Florida), Copenhagen, East Grinstead (West Sussex, England),
and Australia.
[ix] Important to note is that, within
Scientology, all three entertainers are "Honorary LRH [L. Ron Hubbard]
Public Relations Officers" whose goals involve the propagation of
Scientology information and image. (See the list attached to Anderson
1980, 1, 3; Church of Scientology International 1994).
[x] When, for example, Corea responded to a
question about apparent German hostility to Scientology, his
interpretation of its cause was, "We’re dealing with incredible, weird,
wild emotions" (Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe 1997,
17).
No comments:
Post a Comment