The Limits of Celebrity Activism

In the most recent issue of the Christian Century, University of Richmond Professor Douglas Hicks takes a look at the activism of Bono. Bono was named a Time Magazine person of the year for his highly visible work on behalf of world debt relief and more recently his One Campaign, which seeks to sign up millions to lobby their political leaders to do something about world hunger. The One Campaign is supported by Church World Service, Bread for the World, a host of other hunger relief agencies and celebrities, and Bill Gates and his family foundation. Bono talks about it at every concert and encourages his fans to sign up. Hicks wonders how effective it will be:

Signing the pledge of the One Campaign requires very little. It is possible that Bono et al. will not be able to sustain the momentum to make a political difference. This is the point at which celebrity leadership can become a vice. At some point, the celebrity leader must motivate citizens to the point that they, in turn, motivate their political leaders.

This raises the question of how much motivation and how much commitment are needed to eradicate extreme poverty. In the grand scheme of things, the relative amount of money needed is small. The United Nations has asked industrialized countries to give 0.7 percent of their gross national product to fight poverty. This money, some $200 billion, would be far more than what is required to meet the basic human needs of the world's poor. The point: the level of commitment needed to address extreme poverty is not itself extreme. This stance is in sharp contrast to many past moral arguments, such as those of Peter Singer, which imply that the affluent must make drastic lifestyle changes in order to meet the needs of the poor.

There are really two issues here. One is the question of whether Bono can actually mobilize the masses to follow through. I suspect that if a particular effort was targeted, Bono could get the word out and members of Congress would be inundated with calls and letters. And if it was joined by a united front by religious leaders and a high visibility campaign of Bono visiting politicians and making commercials, it would work.

The other issue, though, is that it isn't just money that is needed to eradicate poverty. It is political stability, and that is the real obstacle to ending the suffering in places like Darfur. They desperately need food, but they also need political order and an end to the genocide. On the other hand, as I mentioned in an earlier post about Great Britain's nationwide effort to eradicate childhood poverty, we could do some real good in this country if Bono could help rally the American public to do something similar.

Hicks also raises a question about the moral message that Bono, who is an incredibly wealthy man, is sending:

Does staging a benefit, such as the Live 8 shows last summer, send not one but two lessons to concertgoers? Although fans may learn to show concern about extreme poverty and sign up for the One Campaign, they may also receive the message that an economically privileged lifestyle, in which they buy CDs (promoted shamelessly by some of the performers) and enjoy expensive iPods, is morally acceptable. What if material excess is as harmful to us spiritually as absolute material poverty can be for the poor? Bono cannot lead that fight.

I don't think it is Bono's job to lead that fight. If he can use the power of his celebrity status to raise awareness and get thousands if not millions involved in an effort to do something about hunger, that's a start. And you never know when that economically priviledged Bono fan is going to take a look at that website, become motivated to learn more, and begin to think hard about what it means to have so much when so many have so little. All you can do is plant the seeds, and that is what Bono is doing. But Hicks is right to wonder if and how the names who have signed up for the campaign will be mobilized to act.