"Sometimes 'awareness' is part of the battle. But what are the ultimate results? Does it work?"
Exactly. And I have the same question about celebrity endorsements of political candidates. I would like to see some research on this. Do more people devote their charitable dollars to causes with celebrity names attached? Or vote for the candidate endorsed by, say, Leonardo diCaprio? I suspect not.
I kinda have a problem with charity, to begin with the word charity. It implies a unequal relationship between the parts. Sounds more or less like coins to the plebeians. As if the less fortunate people were inferior to their helpers. It's extremely patronizing. I think the best word is solidarity.
Than in more practical terms, how helpful those institutions can be, especially if you are part of one dealing with other countries, countries that suffered years and years under colonialism and/or have a fragile infra-structure due to wars, internal and external exploitation, corruption? How do you help a different culture without imposing your own culture on it? I am huge supporter of autonomy of nations and I believe countries/cultures should be left to their own devices to sort their problems with little to no interference, situation that can be changed when major violations of human rights are in course.
In most cases those kind of charitable feelings seem to be more linked to wanting to make the world conform to one point of view. And its finality, consciously and unconsciously, economical exploitation.
@marinav: Well there are some charities though, that are charities as you describe and do tend to reify existing inequalities. They usually make the giver/volunteer feel good but don't do much to solve problems. Most international aid including non-state aid is run this way as you allude to.
Acts of solidarity are possible and necessary, and more difficult. I think Emma actually makes this distinction in her interview though she uses different words. But she talks about the problematics of having a "favorite charity" like its an object to own, rather than sort of movements and people and interactions that are just part of engaging with the world, getting to know people who live differently than you do and working toward justice.
@marinav: "I felt that charity was a word to choke over. Who wanted charity? And it was not just human pride but a strong sense of man's dignity and worth, and what was due to him in justice..."
Dorothy Day was referencing her distaste for Catholic charitable institutions in the 30's, but the I believe the same sentiment rings true in your comment. The word Charity does seem to have a connotation that we are stooping from our high ground to help others below us. Instead we should be on the ground beside them, working together toward justice. Solidarity, exactly.
I think I would respect celebrities having all these charities/causes if they all lived more simply. It seems disingenuous if some celebrity goes to Cambodia to bring public awareness of the land mine situation and then returns home to a huge house full of the trendiest clothes and newest gadgets. It goes right along with what Rare Affinity was saying about Nicole Kidman actually giving so little in comparison with the large amount she's been known to make. She could choose to live more simply and give more of her money and time away.
I know this is a judgmental comment, but I only know what I see. I'd like to think I could be proven wrong.
@taranwanderer: oh no, you're right on the money. i appreciate celebrities doing things for a worthy cause, but celebrities travelling to third world countries and war-torn regions to show how committed and compassionate they are, then talking about it on talk shows like they deserve a medal for doing it in the first place, then becoming paid to endorse luxury products...i mean, i know it comes with the job, but taking everything into account makes it seem more than a little maudlin.
@J.D.Regent: i think the issue is that the 'cause' usually translates to 'write a check', and i don't have the cash to write an extra check. i'd prefer causes that emphasize spending personal time helping a cause rather than just writing a check.
I'm also torn about celebrity involvement in charitable causes.
I think that it is admirable of them to take time out of their busy schedules to raise awareness for a just cause and let's be honest here, if it weren't for Dan Akroyd's involvement in "We are the World" there would still be tremendous poverty in Africa.
But another part of me looks at someone like Sean Penn and sees someone that never went hungry for a reason other than possible researching a role and I see someone with a sizable fortune and unrelenting desire to be recognized for something other than a crap movie role. Obviously well meaning, not necessarily misguided, but kind of annoying. Like an obnoxious distant relative who thinks that he knows what is good for you, tells you what you should be doing, but disappears on your birthday.
The more I think about it, the more I wish things were based upon individual acts of kindness than cause awareness. Many of the celebrities who publicize their causes can be individually intolerable (working in foodservice for years, I have served many of them). It's in that respect that I sometimes respect something more along the lines of Michelle Obama volunteering her time at a soup kitchen than the creating of a product line, or a hunger strike. Would this end all atrocities? No, but to me it it far more generous, and far more humane, to give up your meal to a homeless person than hold a $2000 a plate fundraiser for the homeless.
@pandorasmittens: I think it can (and should) be both. Some people perform acts of charity by donating money while some by giving their time/actions. In this respect, expensive fundraisers are necessary. Not everyone wants to volunteer with Habitat for Humanity and go build houses.
This said, I think people should be encouraged to do both.
@pandorasmittens: I suppose it depends on if you get involved with charities so that you can be a moral person (in which case sure, soup kitchen it up) or to produce lasting social change (needs activism and collective public action, not just personal morality).
I get fed up hearing precisely how much a celebrity such as Nicole Kidman gives to a particular cause, such as to the victims of the Australian bushfires. Kidman gave approximately half a million Australian dollars. Impressive! However she was earning over £20 million Australian dollars per film only a few years ago. The Biblical story of the widow's mite always comes to my mind.
when i see celebrities doing things for charity, no matter how passionate, the first thing that comes to my mind is "that's nice" and the second thing that comes to my mind is "TAX WRITEOFF".
My only issue with celebrities and their causes is when they are not versed in or inarticulate regarding the cause they are promoting. "Like... ummm... wow. A lot of people are hungry. Let's... make... pie? Or something? I don't know, I just thin poverty SUCKS!"
Because then you make the cause look less serious.
It's a question of how we perceive the celebrity and their motivation. Take someone like Ed Begley Jr. Not a huge celebrity, but definitely people know who he is. He's committed to "going green" and he lives it, breathes it, and shows by example. If he spoke out about some sort of environmental charity, no one would doubt his earnestness in his cause.
But if suddenly Heidi and Spencer were like "Oh we're funding this environmental charity!" I think you'd hear a collective UGHHHH because you'd believe they'd do it as part of their famewhoring mission.
@PreposterousHypothesis: I think it was a Nova or Frontline special on solar energy I saw with Ed Begley Jr... anyway, apparently he and Bill Nye (the Science Guy) are next door neighbors and basically live to one-up each other in the green-technology department. It was super cute.
@gangey: Have you seen the show? It's pretty funny. Plus he lives in a fairly normal house in LA, and a lot of the things he does environmentally, while not super cheap, are doable by average citizens.
This is why I sort of hate Bono. He markets himself such that going to a U2 concert or buying a U2 album is tied into the same kind of morality that compels people to send money to starving children, or care about families of victims of 9/11.
@morninggloria: That's why I sort of hate him too!! I used to think he blurred the line between his activism and his work as an entertainer out of naivety, but now I think he knows what he's doing. Oh, and I also think that he talks about his causes with such an air of pretentiousness. But I've been yelled at more than once for questioning his work.
@J.D.Regent: Word. I bought a t-shirt that says "Save a continent. Buy useless crap." when the whole Product Red thing came about. I hate that consumption is being touted as charitable. How about everyone just write a check to an AIDS charity equivalent to the cost of a t-shirt instead of hoping that Gap or whatever company forks over cents on the dollar.
I see Emma's point about charity-related terminology losing its strength due to overuse. The word 'awareness' has started to annoy me. It seems that so many causes start and stop at awareness. I've heard of awareness-raising stunts like going a day without shoes or an hour without lights. But the next day and the next hour everyone goes back to their shoes and their lights none the wiser.
I don't see it as a celebrity problem, though. I think celebrities treat causes the way normal people do. Sometimes their hearts are really in it, sometimes they do it for show, sometimes it's merely a token gesture.
@swashbuckling: it was a sweet movie, an airline movie, but worth watching.
Back to the subject: I'd hazard that most celebrities -- not all -- embrace causes because other celebrities do or someone made a good pitch to their manager or publicist. You'd be surprised at how easy it is to rent-a-celeb.
05/05/09
Exactly. And I have the same question about celebrity endorsements of political candidates. I would like to see some research on this. Do more people devote their charitable dollars to causes with celebrity names attached? Or vote for the candidate endorsed by, say, Leonardo diCaprio? I suspect not.
05/05/09
Than in more practical terms, how helpful those institutions can be, especially if you are part of one dealing with other countries, countries that suffered years and years under colonialism and/or have a fragile infra-structure due to wars, internal and external exploitation, corruption? How do you help a different culture without imposing your own culture on it? I am huge supporter of autonomy of nations and I believe countries/cultures should be left to their own devices to sort their problems with little to no interference, situation that can be changed when major violations of human rights are in course.
In most cases those kind of charitable feelings seem to be more linked to wanting to make the world conform to one point of view. And its finality, consciously and unconsciously, economical exploitation.
05/05/09
Acts of solidarity are possible and necessary, and more difficult. I think Emma actually makes this distinction in her interview though she uses different words. But she talks about the problematics of having a "favorite charity" like its an object to own, rather than sort of movements and people and interactions that are just part of engaging with the world, getting to know people who live differently than you do and working toward justice.
05/05/09
Dorothy Day was referencing her distaste for Catholic charitable institutions in the 30's, but the I believe the same sentiment rings true in your comment. The word Charity does seem to have a connotation that we are stooping from our high ground to help others below us. Instead we should be on the ground beside them, working together toward justice. Solidarity, exactly.
05/05/09
I know this is a judgmental comment, but I only know what I see. I'd like to think I could be proven wrong.
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
I think that it is admirable of them to take time out of their busy schedules to raise awareness for a just cause and let's be honest here, if it weren't for Dan Akroyd's involvement in "We are the World" there would still be tremendous poverty in Africa.
But another part of me looks at someone like Sean Penn and sees someone that never went hungry for a reason other than possible researching a role and I see someone with a sizable fortune and unrelenting desire to be recognized for something other than a crap movie role. Obviously well meaning, not necessarily misguided, but kind of annoying. Like an obnoxious distant relative who thinks that he knows what is good for you, tells you what you should be doing, but disappears on your birthday.
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
This said, I think people should be encouraged to do both.
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
Because then you make the cause look less serious.
05/05/09
See any famous person who bangs on about climate change and then drives to their private jet in a gas guzzling SUV. That makes me want to scream.
05/05/09
But if suddenly Heidi and Spencer were like "Oh we're funding this environmental charity!" I think you'd hear a collective UGHHHH because you'd believe they'd do it as part of their famewhoring mission.
05/05/09
05/05/09
[www.livingwithed.net]
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
He's branded U2 as a "moral band" like how cigarettes branded themselves as "sexy."
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
I don't see it as a celebrity problem, though. I think celebrities treat causes the way normal people do. Sometimes their hearts are really in it, sometimes they do it for show, sometimes it's merely a token gesture.
05/05/09
05/05/09
Back to the subject: I'd hazard that most celebrities -- not all -- embrace causes because other celebrities do or someone made a good pitch to their manager or publicist. You'd be surprised at how easy it is to rent-a-celeb.