A recent Huffington Post article quotes Brian Johnson – frontman for AC/DC – accosting Bono for his blatant philanthropy. It feels like a setup for a “Celebrity Deathmatch” event, sure to involve a good number of Fanboys – all whom are still stuck in the 80s, presumably.
“When I was a working man I didn’t want to go to a concert for some bastard to talk down to me that I should be thinking of some kid in Africa. I’m sorry mate, do it yourself, spend some of your own money and get it done. It just makes me angry. I become all tyrannical.” -Bob Johnson
Is this just a publicity stunt between two frontmen who should have stopped making albums in the 90s? Or is there validity to it? Sure, Johnson’s taking a whack at Rock&Roll’s favorite activist, but does he have a point?
I never saw it, but while I was in Taiwan, a TV show aired for a short time called “The Philanthropist.” It was sort of “Amazing Race” meets “World Vision Commercial” meets “The Bachelor” from what I understand. At the end of one segment, the Philanthropizer was seen chatting up a waitress, and then made an off-hand comment about getting her number in the bag (I assume that’s what he got “in the bag” … like I said, didn’t see the episode). According to those who watched it, the rest of the show wasn’t half bad. But that scene unfortunately showcased how philanthropy, or the giving to less fortunate by those who have coin to spare, can be motivated by selfish gain, or used to paint a Do-gooder perception to sway the minds of the general public.
Is that so bad?
It was Jesus who said, “But when you give to the poor, don’t let your left hand know what your right hand is doing” (Matthew 6.3). In other words, don’t shout it out from a 20,000-person filled amphitheater to let all know all the good you’re doing. You’re not fooling anyone if you do something good only for the sake of more attention. Making a hullabaloo out of your tax-write-offs hardly seems an act of much substance. More limelight from philanthropic “Awareness Raising Efforts” does good for no one but yourself …and the impoverished AIDS victim.
But let me suggest the other side of the debate.
To those with a platform (Celebrities, Politicians, Rock Stars… [School Teachers, Blog writers...]), is there an obligation to use that influence to inspire others to do well? To expose injustice, and fight for change?
I would suggest there is.
But does this debunk Johnson’s statements? Does it go too far to build an entire persona around Philanthropy like Bono and Brangelina?
What do you think? What’s the balance?
————————————————
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
I think it’d be great if public figures were all altruistic with 100% pure motives, but in the end, if they do good to gain publicity or do good just to do good, isn’t good still being done? There are definitely people who wouldn’t think to give (time and/or money) unless someone they look up to tells them to.
They might find themselves a joke (like the Brangelina adoption riffs), but really…what’s so bad about that? They’re still doing what they think is important regardless of if they’re joked about…at least, that’s my perspective.
You bring up a great point, Amanda. It reminds me of a quote from Author/Activist, Shane Claiborne. He said (and I paraphrase) “It seems like activism has been a bit of a trend lately, and some people are worried about that. But as far as I’m concerned, there could be worse trends.”
The other day, I was voting for a friend’s charity in the Pepsi Refresh Challenge, and realized that the DNA foundation was going for the same thing. This charity I was voting for (Liberty in North Korea [LiNK]), needs this money desperately to build and maintain a house so that refugees of NK seeking a place to stay in the United States can have a place to go. This (like Vijay’s school) has been a dream for a long long time, and getting these funds would allow them to start it. The DNA Foundation, as near as I can tell, just started up, is run by two celebrities, and doesn’t have a solidified vision for the money yet. While the DNA Fdtn is much more in line with my own advocacy (human trafficking), I couldn’t bring myself to vote for them on basis of cause alone. My response to my friend Kelley when I told her that I voted for LiNK was that I couldn’t bring myself to vote for an organization run by two celebrities who have millions in disposable income themselves.
I think there’s something that’s always frustrated me about seeing celebrities promote causes, especially ones about poverty. I rolled my eyes every time one of those “ONE” ads came on tv a few years ago, not because I didn’t support the cause, but because there was a deep irony in someone with millions telling me, the poor college student, that I can help eliminate poverty. Giving to someone, like I’ve said before, is about sacrifice. It’s not about giving what you can spare, but what you can’t. There is something to what Bob Johnson said.
That said, I think there’s a danger in pointing the finger at celebrities and asking them to do their job to help out when we aren’t doing the same. :/
I voted for LiNK too, Dianna. I have a friend who is going to be interning with them this year. Personally I would rather support my friends, and those whom I feel have a ministry. I enjoy supporting people who are heeding God’s call in their life. As brothers and sisters in Christ I think it’s important to build up the body and work together. They are out there doing something that I am not able to. Consequently they are also encouraging me in my “mission field”.
At the same time, I understand advocacy and activism from celebrities. Giving, regardless of motivation is still giving. Although it may be that these celebrities have millions, I am only called to judge myself in my choices and how I am listening to the voice of God telling me to use my money. I cannot expect those that don’t live under Christ’s rule to live as if they do. It’s a tough call either way. And as Chase quoted Claiborne, “…there could be worse trends”.
I think if you have a platform to do so, you should be encouraging people to give and make a difference. However, you can start by practicing what you preach with humbleness.
Abigail, I think I’m more with you on this debate.
I think we need to take celebrity advocacy at facevalue. To glorify them for it is to raise them on an undue pedestal. But to judge them for it does even worse things for our hearts. To look at celebrity advocacy with disdain ignores two things.
Firstly, it lumps up all the “good works” that they do or are capable of doing into what we see with the public eye. This is where a facevalue-mindset comes in. We can’t assume that they do more than what we see, but we shouldn’t assume that they don’t, either. We can’t see how they spend all their money or blame them for spending it differently than we say we would.
Looking on celebrity advocacy with disdain, we also ignore or belittle the heart that led them to that advocacy. It takes a tone of, “Of course they should be doing those good things,” instead of realizing there are a lot of people – famous or not – who aren’t doing anything.
Though I did conclude the post saying those with a pedestal have an obligation to do Good, doesn’t mean we should expect them to, or belittle their efforts when they do — just as we shouldn’t raise them on said pedestal any higher than they already are.
This is a really good conversation. What you said, Abigail, really resonated with me.
Also, love that Shane Claiborne quote. I just finished reading one of his books, and it’s still picking at my brain…
Oh I agree, Chase and Abigail. I guess I didn’t quite make that clear with my last statement. Basically, what I meant was that I see where Mr. Johnson is coming from because I often share the same frustration – while I do think it’s a good thing that celebrities encourage others to give (it would be needless to reiterate Claiborne here), I do think there is something deeply ironic in that the person on TV telling me to give what I can to eliminate poverty resides in a $16mil mansion. While we don’t know them, and thus can’t (and shouldn’t, anyway) judge, I do think there is something symbolic of America/Western complacency in that those encouraging us to eliminate poverty are also some of the richest in the world. There seems to be a complete lack of awareness of how holding onto riches merely perpetuates the cycles of poverty. In that sense, I think Bob Johnson is right, though his target could have been picked a little better – Bono’s advocacy seems to be the most genuine of most celebrities.
It’s also a question of whether or not a person’s personal life should taint their actions in charity. It may be (and this is just me talking here) that I see in it the action of throwing money at a problem. It’s not a big deal to give what you can spare – think of the man in the temple who came in with his tithe, followed by the widow who gave everything she had. Just throwing that out there as food for thought. This idea of “in what attitude we give” is definitely a “we,” concept – it doesn’t just apply to celebs who are looking for good PR, but for all of us who give money to good causes, or, hey, go on trips to India.
Good discussion though, guys. You’re making me think about whether or not my frustration at celebrities is ill-founded or not.
A different perspective on everything:
Should celebrities use their position as public figures to promote good and just causes? Absolutely. But, even more so, I think the obligation that any person has, celebrity or not, is to lobby for a more involved approach on social justice causes – an informed philanthropy, if you will.
The more celebrities jump on board the bandwagon of “Help such and such poor country,” the more charity and philanthropy in general become little more than a trend or a buzzword. In recent days, “Help Haiti” has become little more than a Twitter shoutout, no more than 160 characters and just as effortless and meaningless. I would argue that the more celebrities simply spout off recycled jargon without actually advocating any informed involvement, the more meaningless the entire charitable movement will become. Is it bad for helping others to become a trend? I would say that it’s probably a good thing, but not the best thing.
Too often, causes and issues are presented as commodities – if we throw enough money at the problem, it will go away. Any one who has worked on the ground level in a third world country will tell you that this is simply not the case. There are often governmental and cultural barriers that prevent money, if given blindly, from reaching those that truly need it. What is more, pumping money into an already broken system of government or economy is not going to fix the problem.
I am a big fan of programs that promote the communities of an impoverished country to develop methods of a self sustaining lifestyle – things like microfinance and vocational educational programs. In my mind, these programs elevate the level of involvement needed from volunteers and donors. You need to actually understand where your money is going and, often, you may need to visit the countries you are donating to or, at the very least, read up to become better informed on why these programs work as well as they do. It’s steps away from clicking on a PayPal link and being able to feel better about yourself, but it’s something that celebrities should and could be using their communicative power to promote.
Just thoughts…
-Mitchell Young
Executive Director, Rock for Justice