10 Mar Glamour Philanthropy
The New York Times Magazine has a great story on celebrity philanthropy. The good news is that, as we all know, celebrities can do a tremendous amount of good in promoting important causes. Publicity and access to power guarantees that their sponsorship of causes can make a difference. But the story also highlights just how self-absorbed and simple-minded celebrities can be. They promote shallow and glamorous causes and avoid tackling anything complicated or prosaic. And with the exception of Bob Geldorf and Bono, they apparently cannot stomach the idea of working with Republicans they despise to do real good for the world. George Clooney cares deeply about Darfur, but not deeply enough to meet with Laura Bush. That would be, in his words “unmanly.” Umm, ok.
Here are the best parts of the article, starting with the ability of stars to raise awareness:
There’s no question that causes do a great deal for the brand identity of the stars and the sponsors who embrace them. But what, exactly, do stars do for causes? They raise money, of course. But that is often less important than raising consciousness. Sometimes you have to see this hydraulic action to appreciate its raw power. In late January, George Clooney spoke at the U.N. after returning from his first trip to peacekeeping sites as the U.N.’s “messenger of peace.” It was the only U.N. press conference I’ve attended where the speaker was mobbed by squealing officials bearing cellphone cameras.
Stars also do a wonderful job of using their influence to gain access to power-brokers:
Stars also have access. They have access to the moguls and the media barons whom they hang out with as a matter of course. But they can also get a meeting with foreign ministers and heads of state…. Power over public opinion is a precious commodity to a political leader. Nobody wants to be on the wrong side of a figure like Bono, who uses his global microphone to mete out praise and (more circumspectly) blame.
But, alas, celebrities lack knowledge, and often don’t appear willing to do the heavy lifting required to gain adequate knowledge (even the ones with Harvard degrees):
One of the real virtues of microfinance is precisely that it treats the poor not as victims but as actors in their own behalf. Portman understands this perfectly well; she says that people should have the right to invest their money as they wish, and to fail, for that matter. But for the young actress, microfinance is an uplifting story, not an ideological choice between self-reliance and handouts. Poor people also need direct assistance, she said, from “programs that other people work on.” Portman seemed to know enough about her subject — but no more than enough. I asked if she had the time to read books on economic development. Portman giggled and said, “I have time; I just don’t want to.”
And most disturbing, celebrities pursue glamorous and simple causes, often in an apparent effort at self-promotion:
The celebrity-philanthropy complex reflects the hierarchy of stardom itself. Ricki Lake and midwives, or Emily Procter and animal rescue, occupy humble rungs; at the very top stand the global celebrities and the global causes — Angelina Jolie and refugees, George Clooney and Darfur, Bono and foreign aid…. Microfinance is a one-star cause…. Natalie Portman is the only member of Hollywood royalty who has dedicated herself to it. Perhaps this is because microfinance is a good deal more complicated than supplying fresh water to parched villages, and a good deal less glamorous than confronting the janjaweed in Darfur.
Some serious study of the “celebrity-philanthropy-complex” is seriously overdue among social scientists.