Posts from — March 2008

Ok, I first saw this beautiful New York Times Magazine cover shot on another blog & was immediately drawn to it. The cover, from last weekend’s edition, features Natalie Portman, a supporter of microfinancing, and an entrepreneur who was the recipient of a microloan for her business in Mexico. As a person passionate about a global cause myself, I connected with the image. But admittedly, the part that struck me the most was the celebrity in the photo. I’m still trying to reconcile whether this is a good thing.

I haven’t read the articles within this edition yet, but the images brought a lot of feelings around celebrities & philanthropy to the surface for me. Star power has the ability to draw attention in a profound way. When used wisely, this can be great. But another byproduct of it is the influence of trend. We can all summon memories of several good and bad trends…think Hammer pants….that were escorted into popularity by a celebrity.

Traditionally, fashion is likely the most popular realm where we find examples of this. But in recent years American culture seems to have evolved when it comes to raising the bar of our ‘cool’ factor. My girlfriend Natalie in Cape Town recently told me it seems like Americans are obsessed with “big” things. From our food portions to our homes she said we basically appear to enjoy over-doing things. When looking at recent American infatuations, i.e. all things lavish, her point is valid. Most notable of these infatuations seems to be what I call ‘values-based’ trends. As ideologically dysfunctional as that term sounds, there are examples all around us. Instead of people simply wanting to emulate a celebrity’s style, now many find it a great idea to adopt a whole new religion as many did with Scientology after Tom Cruise sung it’s praises. Then there’s the example of Angelina Jolie’s adoption of overseas orphaned children, followed in suit by Madonna and others. In the business world we can add Cause Marketing, both on & off-line to the list. However, I think it’s Oprah who has probably had the biggest impact with her efforts in South Africa.

But the question is…is the fact that these new trends are celebrity-inspired a bad thing? When I think of the long-term social impact of Oprah’s efforts in South Africa, it appears clearly a wonderful thing. But where it gets fuzzy for me is when the piggyback effect kicks in; The point when a profusion of celebrities begin to make headlines for the same or similar actions. At that point I begin to question whether the image of them doing good or the actual good deed itself is their driver.

As the cause of my own organization (Giving Spirit) benefits a cause within South Africa, I realize this probably is on my mind more than the average person. Although, I know the idea behind my passion predated the current popularity of related efforts, I still feel uneasy in light of these values-based trends.

If I had to make a conclusive opinion on it all, I’d have to say the risk-benefit ratio is what matters most. When we look at the the sum effect of these new ‘values trends’, the long-term human-impact is clearly immeasurable. Whether it’s needed spiritual enlightenment for someone who jumped on a religious trend, or the facilitation of permanent sustainability for a family made possible with a microloan, the end would seem to justify, or in this case give a pass to, the means.

What do you think?

Recently I watched a video clip of a talk by Andrew Mwenda given at last year’s TED conference in Monterey, CA. The title of his talk was Let’s Take A New Look At African Aid. As helping hand heavy-hitters like Bono sat and listened, Andrew described how the industry of aid has created a monster of a counterproductive system in Africa, whereas, the monies exchanged never quite adequately reach the intended recipients, which are the struggling citizens themselves, and instead fuels bad habits on the part of some African governments.

This charity dynamic made me really start to wonder about the world of philanthropy as a whole when it comes to countries with poverty issues such as Cambodia or those we often hear about within Africa. Although Andrew’s talk was with regard to government to government aid being largely hindering, it also raises the issue of whether everyday people and charities who aim to help in a global way are truly making a difference. Are we pouring our well-intended energy towards merely a band-aid effort, or worse, enabling the problem we’re trying to help eradicate?

I don’t think anyone who has serious interest in dedicating a portion of their life towards a cause they believe in actually wants to only get a less fortunate person through the day. Nor do I think they would want to enable a pre-existing oppressive system. Personally I think that in order to avoid this, people like myself who truly want to make a viral difference i.e. a self-replicating one, need to be focused on how our effort, donations, and intended ‘help’ in general promotes the supply of resources that will allow our beneficiaries to help themselves.

Recently, I’ve been in communication with Andrew by email because, I admit, I was concerned that my own organization was wheel spinning and possibly driving its mission with the wrong vehicle. Fortunately (considering his wealth of expertise in this area), Andrew feels I am on track. But how to stay on track? And how can others with well mapped out plans to make a difference in causes close to their hearts ensure that they are on track or revise their maps if they are off track?

Here’s Andrew’s talk…if you have a few minutes check it out, it’s excellent.