WHAT CELEBRITIES BRING TO THE TABLE

Writing in Sunday’s  New York Times Magazine, James Traub reviews the contributions of celebrities to the world of philanthropy, what he terms the “celebrity/philanthropy complex”.  Traub points out that the “intense presentness” of stars in peoples’  lives and their access to the uppermost realms of politics, business and the media offer them a special kind of moral position should they choose to use it.  For those who do grasp the mantle (Bono, George Clooney, Angelina Jolie and Natalie Portman among them) do they help or hurt?   Traub lists many significant advantages of stars’ involvement in philanthropic causes. Stars; (i) raise money, (ii) raise consciousness, (iii) bring access (moguls and media barons who follow stars around follow them in their public philanthropic activities also); (iv) have power over public opinion, (v) can make a crucial difference when the goal is to increase public receptivity to a cause or practice; (vi) and can help change policies in Western countries highly sensitive to public opinion.  The downside?  Stars, like activists tend to engage in grand rhetoric; they bring simplicity to complexity that increases awareness but over-simplification can be harmful.  For example, with respect to development issues, celebrities may treat, and refer to Africa as a victim, an attitude which, however well-meaning, is at odds with (and unhelpful to) a view of Africa that holds that what Africa really needs is real democratic governance, trade, investment and an empowered middle class. 
ss