Celebrity Philanthropy and Activism

Mediated Interventions in the Global Public Sphere

Hilde Van Den Bulck

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN:
  9780367591984
• eBook ISBN:
  9781315306858
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Media Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

In recent years, celebrity philanthropy and activism has attracted much attention from the media, sparking a great deal of public interest. As exponents and endorsers of the marketisation and corporatisation of philanthropy and activism, globally renowned super-celebrities habitually lend their name, time and energy to a range of causes. They help raise awareness, generate funds and endeavour to evoke social and political responses to crucial societal issues. These can range from domestic violence, cancer prevention, climate change and transgender acceptance, to refugee problems and fighting poverty at home and abroad. But in what ways do (mediated communications about) these celebrities have the power to define what is going wrong in the world, who or what is to blame, how this can be solved and how this is to be evaluated morally and ethically? Does celebrity humanitarianism and activism serve to reinforce postcolonial power relations or does it help solve social problems, advancing traditional views on how society is, and should be, organised? Importantly, more than conceptual and empirical exploration of celebrity philanthropy and activism as such, this book analyses the mediated communication, the mediatised narratives that these endeavours provide.

Combining insights from philanthropy and welfare regime studies, international politics and diplomacy, postcolonial studies, but also from marketing, from celebrity, star and fan studies, and from media, communication and cultural studies, this book critically analyses the mediated discourses and debates that celebrity philanthropy and activism provokes, and considers wider ethical and theoretical perspectives. It will be of interest to all scholars and students working in sociology, health and social care and social policy.

Part I

Celebrity philanthropy and activism

Origins, celebrity and the media

Chapter 1

Philanthropy and activism

Introduction

Celebrities engage in all kinds of social, cultural and political issues at home and abroad, by drawing attention, raising funds or pleading a cause. This is not an isolated phenomenon but rather has its roots in a number of long-standing traditions, accompanied by certain views on how to take care of things and on the role of individuals, civil society, corporations and the State in the organisation of society. The rapid growth of celebrities’ engagement has captured academic attention, yet there is a lack of conceptual clarity as a range of terms with varying meaning are used. This results from the fact that the phenomenon covers different activities and various topics of concern and, therefore, is looked at (and defined) from several scholarly disciplines and traditions, including social policy, philosophy, economics, international politics, postcolonial studies, celebrity and cultural studies, marketing and health communication, amongst others.

In this book, we position celebrity engagement in the evolving traditions of philanthropy and activism. As such, celebrity’s societal engagement brings together potentially opposite approaches to solving societal problems at home and abroad: philanthropy’s ‘top-down’ attempt at social improvement within the status quo and activism’s grass roots efforts to change the status quo. In order to fully understand these phenomena, this chapter starts with providing some definitions of philanthropy and activism and discusses their relationship to notions of charity and advocacy. However, this is not an easy undertaking, as every one of these terms is, what Sulek (2010: 193) calls, ‘a signal word, the evolution in the meaning of which reflects historically dominant philosophical and cultural trends in modern Western society’. In other words, appreciation of the terms develops over time and depends on geographical, sociopolitical and cultural contexts and conditions. Therefore, the definitions are followed by a diachronic perspective, looking, first, at the historical roots of philanthropy and activism and, subsequently, at important contemporary developments. In particular, we focus on the marketisation and corporatisation of philanthropy and activism as these evolutions are directly related to the rise of celebrities’ involvement. These trends will be explained and criticised. Crucially we focus on the discourses that accompany these developments. Such discourses are value-laden, as many authors emphasise ethical aspects, i.e. underlying motivations that go beyond mere observable activities. As a result, discussions of marketisation have a strong normative tendency, focussing on the societal views that underlie them.

Defining philanthropy and activism

Philanthropy defined

In an attempt to define philanthropy, Sulek (2010: 52) refers to Miller (2006) who encourages ‘to specify the boundaries between motives, means, and objectives’, a comment that can be extended to understanding activism and other related phenomena. On this basis, Sulek (2010) works through a range of definitions from the study of philanthropy. These include, amongst others, Robert Payton’s (1988) definition of philanthropy as ‘voluntary action for the public good’, Jon Van Til’s (1990: 34) view on philanthropy as ‘the voluntary giving and receiving of time and money aimed (however imperfectly) toward the need of charity and the interests of all in a better quality of life’ and Paul Schervish’s (1998: 600) notion of ‘a social relation governed by a moral obligation that matches a supply of private resources to a demand of unfulfilled needs and desires that are communicated by entreaty’. Lester Salamon (1999: 10) considers philanthropy as ‘the private giving of time and valuables (money, security, property) for public purposes’. Across definitions, Sulek (2010: 203) observes a number of disagreements, including, first, whether philanthropy is voluntary or compelled by factors such as moral restraints and social obligations; second, whether philanthropy serves a public purpose, a public good, a charitable need, or simply a communicated want or desire; and, third, whether philanthropy is an intent to achieve a particular aim, is the actual attainment of that aim, or is simply a private act (of giving). Circumventing these points of discussion, Sulek (2010) adheres to a broad definition of philanthropy as ‘the application of private means to public ends’, a description that this book adheres to, whereby we consider ‘means’ to encompass money, time and effort, and ‘public ends’ to ranging from a purpose over a good to a need.

Philanthropy, social policy and charity

Several authors elaborate on how philanthropy compares to other, related phenomena. First, Nickel and Eikenberry (2010) distinguish between philanthropy and governmental social policy. While the former refers to a well-meaning person contributing to the improvement of human welfare, government social policy is seen to ‘represent the actions of an elected government or international organization, collecting and redistributing taxes or fees, according to collective understandings of well-being’ (Nickel and Eikenberry, 2010: 271). One key relevant distinction between the two is the locus of power to decide on the public issues to pursue, as well as on how to pursue them, as philanthropy transfers that decision from representatives of the people and of the State(s) to individuals from the social strata of the (extremely) affluent, making philanthropy a top-down initiative.

Second, some authors distinguish philanthropy from charity and charitable giving. For Anderson (2009), philanthropy is associated with ‘multiple acts of giving over time with rational and socially approved and defined goals, which generally has to do with improving social conditions [and as such] focusses more on cultural improvements which impact society’ (Anderson, 2009: 26). As such, philanthropy is more occupied with social reform and organisation than charity, which deals predominantly with assistance and can be restricted to one-off contributions. However, the difference appears to be mainly in the underlying ethics and is therefore not always clear: ‘Without a compelling social program, charity can dissipate into transient encounters between unequals. But without direct, mutual bonds between givers and recipients, philanthropy sacrifices practical effectiveness and moral purpose’ (Friedman and McGarvie, 2003: 48).

Activism and advocacy

The other main term to discuss in relationship to celebrities’ societal engagement is activism. At its most basic, activism refers to endeavours aimed at affecting social, political, economic or environmental change. It typically involves causes that go against the mainstream and the status quo, that seek ‘change that at least to some extent challenges the established order […] and requires sustained collective action with a political purpose’ (Dauvergne and LeBaron, 2014: 6–7, see also Martin, 2007). Activism can take many forms, ranging from street protests and letter writing to direct lobbying with politicians. In that sense, advocacy can be considered as a particular form of activism. Indeed, advocacy, too, involves working to end inequality and social injustice, i.e. ‘to shift social norms and change policies in ways that support marginalised communities and resist dominant agencies’ (Wilkins, 2012: 3). However, the notion of advocacy stresses communication rather than activism’s taking it to the streets.

For Dauvergne and Lebaron (2014: 6–7): ‘Individual action to change personal conditions […] does not qualify as activism. Nor do the actions of organizations born out of the private sector and family philanthropy’. They consider activism as the opposite of philanthropy. The crucial difference, however, is not so much the actor but the aim. In its ideal conception, philanthropy aims for social improvement within the existing social structures, while activism is seen as fighting the system itself. As such, and as the historical contextualisation will show, philanthropy is part and parcel of capitalism, from which it emanates, while activism, traditionally, is set to ‘challenge political and corporate authority and call for structural change to alter the outcomes of markets and politics’ (Dauvergne and Lebaron, 2014: 26). Wanting to change the current order is not the same as wanting to fight capitalism, though (Martin, 2007). An example would be activism against Obamacare by US conservative republicans aiming for a free market. As a result, activism can be taken up by individuals – either activists or people supporting activism – by non-profit organisations and, as we will see further on, even by corporations.

Philanthropy and activism: range of causes

The broadness of the definitions of philanthropy and activism suggests that they potentially cover a wide range of topics that vary in their orbit of impact from the public to the private and from the local to the global. As will become clear, the roots of philanthropy and activism are to be found in ‘domestic’ issues: improving the plight of the poor, raising literacy levels, supporting the arts at home. These range from issues that are predominantly part of the public domain, to issues that are very much related to the private aspects of people’s lives, including domestic violence, right to abortion and the like. Giving USA is an organisation that publishes annual reports on philanthropic donations in the US, based on research conducted by the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy (www.givingusa.org). All donations to all charitable organisations are categorised. Next to giving to foundations and to individuals, philanthropic endeavours are categorised as arts, culture and humanities; education; environment/animals; health; human services; public-society benefit; religion and international affairs.

The latter indicates that philanthropy also has a long history of dealing with issues abroad. Historically, we can refer to the cultural, religious and social initiatives of churches and philanthropists that were part and parcel of political colonisation waves. Today, international philanthropy is a key player in humanitarian endeavours of representatives of wealthy nations in developing parts of the world. Philanthropy is also part of dominant nations’ so-called soft power: the ability of a country to persuade others to do what it wants, not by brute political or military force or coercion, but by spreading their values, ideals and culture through, amongst others, philanthropic endeavours (Nye, 1990, 2004). Beyond that, the internationalisation of philanthropy and activism can be related to the globalisation of society and of sociopolitical issues. To name but one, climate change and global warming transcend national boundaries and therefore requires transnational activist efforts.

Looking back: the history of philanthropy and activism

The roots of philanthropy and activism

Sulek (2010, see also Pearson, 1997) traces the earliest history of philanthropy to ancient Greek and Roman times, but contends that the first use of the term philantropia, in its original and its modern sense, is to be found in the texts of Sir Francis Bacon (1561–1621): ‘I take goodness in this sense, the affecting of the weal of men, which is that the Grecians call philantropia; and the word humanity (as it is used) is a little too light to express it’ (Bacon and Pitcher, 1985: 96 as cited in Sulek, 2010: 195). Sulek sees an emphasis on the habit rather than just the inclination of doing good and on goodness. The latter is also the dominant meaning of the term in subsequent key writing such as The King James Bible (1611) that brought the term into the areas of the theological and the social. Philanthropy subsequently returns in the work of French enlightenment writer Denis Diderot (1713–1784) and various English philosophers and writers like Joseph Addison (1672–1719) and Samuel Johnson (1709–1784), for whom philanthropy ‘must be a constant and consistent feature of a person’s character to be deserving of “the title of a moral virtue”’ (Sulek, 2010: 196). He signals the early use of the term in the US by Alexander Hamilton (1757–1804) and Noah Webster (1758–1843) who defined philanthropy in the first American English dictionary as ‘the love of mankind; benevolence towards the whole human family; universal good will’.

The nineteenth century was important in the growth of philanthropy, contributing to the expansion of the meaning of the term to cover a continuum, from the original ‘inner state of mind’ towards its contemporary meaning as an ‘objective reality in the world’ (Sulek, 2010: 200; see Freeland, 2012; McGoey, 2015). Indeed, the nineteenth century saw, on the one hand, an expansion in the range of charitable societies and organisations focussed on social and political reform. In the US, this was tied in with the aftermath of the American Revolution, while in the UK, this followed on from the effects of the Industrial Revolution (Freeland, 2012).

On the other hand, the nineteenth century, and especially the latter half – the so-called First Gilded Age – saw the rise of wealthy industrialists who, having gained enormous wealth, turned themselves into generous benefactors. They made extensive donations to the growing number of charitable organisations or created their own foundations (Carnegie, 1993; Freeland, 2012; Gates and Morison, 1977; McGoey, 2015; Sulek, 2010). A prototypical example was late nineteenth and early twentieth century US steel industrialist Andrew Carnegie, who saw a relationship between the success of his company and the well-being of his workers. Like other Gilded Age philanthropists such as Henry Ford and John D. Rockefeller, Carnegie believed that only the wealthy were in a position to best understand the needs of the workers, even if the latter understood the commercial potential of higher wages and leisure time (McGoey, 2015; see also Freeland, 2012). As a result, philanthropy as a term came to refer to either donating money or to something close to the abovementioned notion of activism, i.e. a sociopolitical movement (Sulek, 2010). However, philanthropy such as that of Carnegie generated a paradox. He believed that parting with as much wealth as possible was the right thing to do, but to be able to give back more to society, he needed to exploit his workers even more. This underlines the meaning of Gilded Age as criticised by Mark Twain: a thin layer of bling to smooth over (or rather hide) deep social problems. As such, there was no interest in fundamentally changing the capitalist system but rather in improving conditions without changing the status quo (Freeman and Ilkiw, 2012). Indeed, when the Ford Foundation, founded by car innovator Ford, became too radical and anti-capitalist, Ford’s grandson resigned as it went beyond its original goal (McGoey, 2015).

Deeply ingrained in these philanthropic endeavours is what McGoey (2015) refers to as the historical and anthropological notion of the Big Man, i.e. the tribal leader who gives gifts to create useful friendships, which is reflected in the more widely used concept of noblesse oblige, i.e. nobility obligates. In a European context, the latter indicates that noble birth comes not just with entitle...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• List of tables
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• PART I Celebrity philanthropy and activism: Origins, celebrity and the media
• PART II Celebrity philanthropy and activism in international relations and diplomacy, development and humanitarianism
• Postscript
• Index