Debate
Is there any point in giving honorary doctorates to celebrities?
Tina Turner has one, as does Roger Federer: an honorary doctorate. Obviously, they are both immensely talented and have achieved much. But from an academic point of view, is there a point to awarding them the title of ‘Dr h.c.’?
Image: zVg
Image: Ute Schendel
In 2021 the University of Bern gave the world-famous singer Tina Turner an honorary doctorate. In 2017, the University of Basel gave the same title to the tennis player Roger Federer. In the latter case, the university’s medical faculty justified its choice at the time by stating that he promotes good health. Honorary doctorates for celebrities are in vogue. The Dalai Lama, for example, already has about fifty of them. Well-known CEOs also like to style themselves ‘Dr’, even to the point of getting certificates from non-accredited universities. Honorary doctorates are also popular among veteran professors, some of whom have several ‘Dr h.c.’ to their name.
Whoever has will be given more. That’s what the Bible says, and it’s still true. High wages and ample wealth tend to rise quicker than low wages. They bring influence and prestige. But there are others who develop many worthwhile things but don’t earn much money, and remain in the background. You don’t see those who are in the dark, wrote Bertolt Brecht in The Threepenny Opera. Our society is engaged in a process of economisation; it’s driven by competition and money. What’s good is what’s profitable in the short term. Financial and symbolic incentives spur us on, though they have an increasingly inflationary and demotivating impact. This is also because those who are chalking up achievements and getting respect for them are usually the ones who are already in the limelight and had a better start in life anyway.
But there are countless people who are creatively and intellectually active without receiving any bonus for it. They do their work in a thoroughly scholarly, well-founded, discriminating way. Businesspeople, for example, can develop environmentally friendly processes. Media professionals explore volatile stories. Sportspeople reflect critically on what they experience during cycling races, cross-country skiing championships or tennis tournaments – all without aspiring to millions in advertising. They and many others deserve more recognition. Honorary doctorates can promote innovative creativity, but titles run the risk of entrenching hierarchies and elevating some above others. And no one is immune to this. So it is all the more important for universities to cultivate a balance in society, and to use honorary degrees to send out an unconventional sign – by shedding light on hidden, pioneering achievements instead of adorning people with shiny feathers.
Ueli Mäder is a retired professor of sociology at the University of Basel. In 2017 he was one of those who criticised awarding an honorary degree to Roger Federer. One of his research focus areas is social inequality.
Celebrities arouse the envy of non-celebrities: They are rich, beautiful, famous and successful. It seems unfair that honours should be heaped on them too. That’s why we often hear the argument that we should rather honour those who have not had the luck of such celebrity. But – with the exception of ‘influencers’ and the free-floating celebrity participants of reality shows – the status of a ‘celebrity’ in a figurative sense, i.e., the state of being famous, is actually a side effect of celebrity in the true sense of the word: they are people who excel in a field of human activity, whether it be arts, sports, science, politics, business, or society. It would be small-minded not to admire such excellence.
If we turn the matter around and shift our focus from celebrity to excellence, then we find the problem reduced ad absurdum and the apparent contradiction dissolves away. But there is something more: Academic ill-will towards celebrities follows a bigoted pecking order. Depending on their fields and the types of achievement that have helped celebrities to gain their reputations, they are either under pressure to justify themselves, or are allowed to accumulate honours without restraint. The first group tends to include women and representatives of the lighter muse, while the second group consists of men from so-called serious fields of activity. Mario Vargas Llosa, the Nobel Prize-winning writer and socialite, has been adorned with more ‘Dres. h.c.’ than a Christmas tree has colourful baubles. Unlike the case of the honorary doctorate awarded to Angela Merkel in 2009, there has been no public debate about him.
In the case of music, people turn up their noses at stars from the pop and rock genres. But no one would be upset if a third ‘Dr h.c.’ were awarded to Heinz Holliger or Daniel Barenboim, both of whom are old, white men of classical music. When the University of Bern awarded an honorary doctorate to a non-white, older woman who is a living legend of rock and pop, namely Tina Turner, the editors of Horizons promptly felt compelled to question the meaning and purpose of honorary doctorates for celebrities. Why? In any case, it says a lot.
Cristina Urchueguía, a professor of musicology at the University of Bern, is researching into the influence of aesthetic and historical value canons on music history. She is the president of the Swiss Musicological Society (SMG).
Image: zVg
In 2021 the University of Bern gave the world-famous singer Tina Turner an honorary doctorate. In 2017, the University of Basel gave the same title to the tennis player Roger Federer. In the latter case, the university’s medical faculty justified its choice at the time by stating that he promotes good health. Honorary doctorates for celebrities are in vogue. The Dalai Lama, for example, already has about fifty of them. Well-known CEOs also like to style themselves ‘Dr’, even to the point of getting certificates from non-accredited universities. Honorary doctorates are also popular among veteran professors, some of whom have several ‘Dr h.c.’ to their name.
Whoever has will be given more. That’s what the Bible says, and it’s still true. High wages and ample wealth tend to rise quicker than low wages. They bring influence and prestige. But there are others who develop many worthwhile things but don’t earn much money, and remain in the background. You don’t see those who are in the dark, wrote Bertolt Brecht in The Threepenny Opera. Our society is engaged in a process of economisation; it’s driven by competition and money. What’s good is what’s profitable in the short term. Financial and symbolic incentives spur us on, though they have an increasingly inflationary and demotivating impact. This is also because those who are chalking up achievements and getting respect for them are usually the ones who are already in the limelight and had a better start in life anyway.
But there are countless people who are creatively and intellectually active without receiving any bonus for it. They do their work in a thoroughly scholarly, well-founded, discriminating way. Businesspeople, for example, can develop environmentally friendly processes. Media professionals explore volatile stories. Sportspeople reflect critically on what they experience during cycling races, cross-country skiing championships or tennis tournaments – all without aspiring to millions in advertising. They and many others deserve more recognition. Honorary doctorates can promote innovative creativity, but titles run the risk of entrenching hierarchies and elevating some above others. And no one is immune to this. So it is all the more important for universities to cultivate a balance in society, and to use honorary degrees to send out an unconventional sign – by shedding light on hidden, pioneering achievements instead of adorning people with shiny feathers.
Ueli Mäder is a retired professor of sociology at the University of Basel. In 2017 he was one of those who criticised awarding an honorary degree to Roger Federer. One of his research focus areas is social inequality.
Image: Ute Schendel
Celebrities arouse the envy of non-celebrities: They are rich, beautiful, famous and successful. It seems unfair that honours should fall to them too. That’s why we often hear the argument that we should rather honour those who have not had the luck of such celebrity. But – with the exception of ‘influencers’ and the free-floating celebrity participants of reality shows – the status of a ‘celebrity’ in a figurative sense, i.e., the state of being famous, is actually a side effect of celebrity in the true sense of the word: they are people who excel in a field of human activity, whether it be arts, sports, science, politics, business, or society. It would be small-minded not to admire such excellence.
If we turn the matter around and shift our focus from celebrity to excellence, then we find the problem reduced ad absurdum and the apparent contradiction dissolves away. But there is something more: Academic ill-will towards celebrities follows a bigoted pecking order. Depending on their fields and the types of achievement that have helped celebrities to gain their reputations, they are either under pressure to justify themselves, or are allowed to accumulate honours without restraint. The first group tends to include women and representatives of the lighter muse, while the second group consists of men from so-called serious fields of activity. Mario Vargas Llosa, the Nobel Prize-winning writer and socialite, has been adorned with more ‘Dres. h.c.’ than a Christmas tree has colourful baubles. Unlike the case of the honorary doctorate awarded to Angela Merkel in 2009, there has been no public debate about him.
In the case of music, people turn up their noses at stars from the pop and rock genres. But no one would be upset if a third ‘Dr h.c.’ were awarded to Heinz Holliger or Daniel Barenboim, both of whom are old, white men of classical music. When the University of Bern awarded an honorary doctorate to a non-white, older woman who is a living legend of rock and pop, namely Tina Turner, the editors of Horizons promptly felt compelled to question the meaning and purpose of honorary doctorates for celebrities. Why? In any case, it says a lot.
Cristina Urchueguía, a professor of musicology at the University of Bern, is researching into the influence of aesthetic and historical value canons on music history. She is the president of the Swiss Musicological Society (SMG).
