On Celebrity Philanthropy

2 On Celebrity Philanthropy Elaine Jeffreys Celebrity philanthropy and the sociopolitical role and impact of the celebrity philanthropist are growing fields of academic inquiry (Tsaliki, Frangonikolopoulos and Huliaras 2011; Kapoor 2013). In 2005, Time magazine named rock star Bono and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and his wife Melinda as its ‘Persons of the Year’, citing their philanthropic work and activism aimed at reducing global poverty and improving world health. Time also praised Bono and the Gates’ for ‘being shrewd about doing good, for rewiring politics and re-engineering justice, for making mercy smarter and hope strategic and then daring the rest of us to follow’ (Gibbs 2005). This improved version of philanthropy refers to what its exponents describe as ‘new philanthropy’, ‘philanthrocapitalism’ or ‘creative capitalism’ (Bishop 2007; Gates 2008). These terms mark the transformation, which began in late seventeenth-century England and was consolidated in the US in the twentieth century, from ‘charity’, understood as giving between individuals (Andrew 1989: 197–202; Sulek 2010: 201), to ‘philanthropy’ – an institutionally channeled humanitarian response to conditions of poverty and social injustice using business-like models of efficiency, transparency and money-making success (Bishop 2007: 5–6; Gates 2008). Celebrities enter into the terrain of new philanthropy by using their public visibility, brand credibility and personal ury Ame wealth to aid philanthropic activities, defined as ‘the planned and structured giving of money, time, information, goods and services, voice and influence to improve the wellbeing of humanity and the community’ (‘Philanthropy’ n.d.). The involvement of major celebrities in philanthropic work and advocacy on humanitarian issues is not a new phenomenon. Since 1954, the United Nations (UN) has recruited famous people, for example, actor Danny Kaye, to obtain funds and support for its causes (‘UNICEF people’ n.d.; Wilson 2014: 37–9). Popular musicians have also been involved in raising public awareness of humanitarian causes, obtaining funding and lobbying legislators on a wide range of issues. These include civil rights and anti-(Vietnam) war demonstrations in the US during the 1960s and 1970s, and charity concerts, record sales and telethon appeals held in many western nations during the 1980s for poverty alleviation in Africa, such as Band Aid and Live Aid events (Andersson 2007; Huddart 2007; Richey and Ponte 2008: 716). However, celebrity philanthropy has expanded and altered in character in western societies since the 1990s (Harris 2003: 3; Littler 2008: 240; Traub 2008: 40). Scholars attribute this expansion to a combination of factors. The most important of these are: the post-Cold War triumph of neoliberalism and the decline of the welfare state ideal; the failure of governments to resolve the structural inequalities associated with globalization; the spread of information technology; the increasing dependence of the not-for-profit sector on marketing, branding and public relations to compete for funds; and the pervasiveness of celebrity culture in everyday life (Turner, Bonner and Marshall 2000: 166; Cooper 2007b: 5–7; Littler 2008: 240–1; Sawaya 2008: 212). Celebrity philanthropy and activism in the twenty-first century is differentiated from the practice wherein the rich and famous ‘give back’ by cheque-writing at gala charity functions because of its increasingly institutionalized, business-like and transnational form. Celebrity philanthropy now occurs through the establishment of foundations that employ professional philanthropic advisers and operate based on transparency and public performance analysis (Traub 2008: 40). Celebrities act as image ambassadors for large not-for-profit organizations using their profiles to shape public opinion and lobby governments and for-profit companies to support their chosen causes (Cooper 2007a, 2007b; Bishop and Green 2008: 73, 78; Dieter and Kumar 2008: 259). Celebrities have also emerged as a new type of transnational advocate in debates about development goals through their involvement in global humanitarian causes associated with the UN, which expanded its celebrity ambassador system in the 2000s to include over 400 people (Alleyne 2005: 176–8; Wheeler 2011: 55). Indeed, the ‘Look to the Stars: The World of Celebrity Giving’ website – advertised as ‘the web’s number one source of celebrity charity news and information’ – claims that as of January 2015 there were over 3,400 [Hollywood-branded] celebrities involved with more than 2,000 charities that aim to ‘make a positive difference in the world’ (‘Look to the stars’ 2006–15). Scholars and other interested commentators both praise and condemn the phenomenon of contemporary celebrity philanthropy – its manifestations in international contexts, in particular – for demonstrating the perceived benefits and drawbacks of advanced capitalism and western liberal democracy in action. It is lauded for popularizing humanitarian values and global citizenship (Cooper 2007b: 16–18; Gates 2008; Traub 2008). Conversely, it is criticized for affirming neoliberal capitalism and undermining philanthropy’s potentially transformative emphasis on the need for social change (Alleyne 2005; Weiskel 2005; Fullilove 2006; Nickel and Eikenberry 2006; Dieter and Kumar 2008; Nickel 2012; Kapoor 2013). While supporters may overstate the transformative capacity of celebrity philanthropy, critics tend to unify different types of celebrities, philanthropic activity, and even the motivations of individual celebrities and their fans, under the overarching framework of ‘bad capitalism and consumer culture at work’. Celebrity philanthropy, and the individual motivations of celebrities and their fans for philanthropic advocacy and engagement, clearly can take very different forms: ‘no grand, one-size-fits-all interpretation is sufficient’ (‘t Hart and Tindall 2009: 257). Further case studies and typologies are required to comprehend the nature and effects of the different kinds of celebrity-mediated philanthropy and activism that exist in the world today (Stewart 2007: 19). This chapter examines the controversy surrounding contemporary celebrity philanthropy as follows. It first details the arguments provided by supporters and critics of celebrity philanthropy, in order to highlight their organizing concerns. The debate is largely related to the question of whether mediatized celebrity philanthropy contributes to the goals of international humanitarianism and the expansion of democratic politics or not. The chapter then questions claims by critics that celebrity-mediated philanthropy is the antithesis of humanitarian values and progressive politics. It shows that the development of international humanitarianism, like celebrity, has itself been closely tied to the historical development of capitalism and the mass media. It also shows that the social and political impact of celebrity philanthropy is not reducible to the intentions and actions of individual celebrities. In conclusion, I argue that empirical studies of the development and impact of celebrity philanthropy in contexts other than the US and the UK are required, in order to provide a comparative framework for analysis, and to redress the western and Anglophone focus of existing studies. This point is demonstrated with reference to the example of the People’s Republic of China – a non-western country that has only recently begun to develop a market economy, a commercial celebrity culture and concepts of philanthropic citizenship. In praise and blame of celebrity philanthropy The problem of our age is the proper administration of wealth, so that the ties of brotherhood may still bind together the rich and poor in harmonious relationship. (Carnegie 1889: 653) Supporters of new philanthropy, and by extension both corporate and celebrity philanthropy, often maintain a utopian conviction that the free-market economy offers a solution to the problems posed by worldwide growing inequalities of wealth, rather than being the cause of such problems (Bishop and Green 2008). Andrew Carnegie (1835–1919), a Scottish-born rags-to-riches US industrialist and one of the richest men in history, was an early proponent of this claim. In a famous essay titled ‘Wealth’, Carnegie (1889: 653–64) argues that ‘the law of competition’ has revolutionized the condition of human life. Instead of living in universal squalor, considerably more people than previously have access to vastly improved standards of living and education, albeit especially the wealthy. Thus, the task posed for modern human society is to work out how to spread the advantages of the free-market economy more equitably. Carnegie’s solution to this problem, which he describes as involving the ‘proper administration of wealth’, justifies the free-market economy and prescribes a philanthropic asceticism for the entrepreneurial new rich as a kind of ‘middle way’ between material individualism and state socialism. Carnegie (1889) believed that inequalities between the rich and the poor were temporary and could be eliminated under what we now refer to as capitalism, so long as people with the ability and energy to produce wealth assumed responsibility for the ‘proper’ recirculation of their money back into society. In his view, successful entrepreneurs were duty-bound to: set an example of modest, unostentatious living; provide moderately for the legitimate needs of their dependents; and use all their surplus revenues during their lifetime in a manner best calculated to benefit the community, rather than leaving large sums of money to be squandered by heirs or ineffective charitable organizations. At the same time, Carnegie (1889) disapproved of what he saw as ‘alms-giving’ – charity that maintained the poor in an impoverished state and created welfare dependency. Instead, he argued that charitable organizations should help those with the desire to improve themselves and therefore society as a whole. Carnegie (1889) called his idealistic solution to the problem of social inequalities ‘The Gospel of Wealth’. While disavowing organized religion until late in his life, Carnegie’s solution is influenced by the Protestant work ethic and an accompanying view of human nature, social obligations and the role of government, a view that might now be described as conservative liberalism. Successful people in Carnegie’s opinion are hard-working and frugal entrepreneurs who deserve to be rewarded for their industry, rather than having their energy and innovation restricted by heavy government taxes. Successful entrepreneurs are also willing to continue producing surplus wealth to be redistributed as social welfare throughout their lifetime, even though they are not elected officials with an obligation to do so, because of their love of humanity and love of self (ego). According to Carnegie (1889), charitable entrepreneurs will be rewarded for their actions by being praised in life and after their death, whereas those who die leaving unspent and unassigned millions will be ‘unwept’, ‘unhonored’, ‘unsung’ and ‘disgraced’. In short, Carnegie believed that late nineteenth-century US entrepreneurs had the capacity to overcome the problem of poverty and generate future social harmony by continuing to do what they did best – accumulating private wealth under a free-market economy, while ensuring that their surplus wealth was disposed of during their lifetime in a way that promoted the welfare, happiness and culture of humankind. Billionaire-philanthropist Bill Gates (2008) similarly expounds the benefits of ‘creative capitalism’ as a twenty-first century solution to the problem of global as opposed to national social inequalities. In a modern-day echo of Carnegie, Gates (2008) asks: ‘How can we most effectively spread the benefits of capitalism and the huge improvements in quality of life it can provide to people who have been left out?’ He argues that market incentives and supportive government policies should be used to harness the creativity, technical skills and profit-maximizing desire of corporations, in order to spread the benefits of capitalism more quickly, and speed up the traditional and slower work of governments and not-for-profits in assisting the socially vulnerable. Providing an example of creative capitalism at work, Gates (2008) notes that companies that sell (RED)-branded products, such as Dell, Gap, Hallmark, and Microsoft, donate a portion of their profits to fight AIDS. Since it was launched by rock star Bono in 2006, Product RED has generated USD 300 million for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria – a public-private financing organization that works in partnership with donor-country governments, helping over 13 million people mostly in Africa through HIV and AIDS programs (‘Our story’ n.d.). Gates (2008) concludes that creative capitalism can resolve the problems associated with inequalities in wealth because it draws on ‘two great forces of human nature: self-interest and caring for others’. Unlike the reactive response of traditional corporate philanthropy to grant requests from unrelated not-for-profit organizations, creative capitalism generates a virtuous cycle of philanthropy by encouraging socially responsible companies to grasp new opportunities and profits while ‘serving the people who have been left out’ (Gates 2008). It also draws in consumers who want to be associated with good causes and employees who want to work for organizations that they can feel good about in both their private and public lives. In 2008, Gates stopped working on a day-to-day level at Microsoft to spend more time at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a foundation that has distributed around USD 31.6 billion since 1994 in grants that aim to improve health and alleviate poverty in developing countries, and provide equal education opportunities in the US (‘Foundation fact sheet’ 1999–2015). In 2010, Gates also launched a Carnegian-style campaign called The Giving Pledge with business magnate Warren Buffett. The Giving Pledge invites the world’s wealthiest individuals to commit to giving the majority of their wealth to effective philanthropic organizations/causes of their choice either during their lifetime or immediately after their death (http://givingpledge.org/). Supporters of new philanthropy typically praise the involvement of celebrity CEOs and entertainment celebrities in international humanitarian causes on pragmatic grounds. The use of their money and public reputation promotes philanthropic objectives, irrespective of their individual motivations, which may be altruistic, self-interested or a combination of both. As development economist and philanthropist Jeffrey Sachs puts it: In the very noisy and complicated world that we have, people that reach large numbers of people, like Madonna does, have an extraordinarily important role to play. When they’re devoting their time, their money, their name, a lot of effort, a lot of organization skill to all of this, it makes a huge difference. The cynics are just wrong. They don’t get it. (Sachs cited in Luscombe 2006) Celebrity philanthropy is therefore praised by supporters for raising the public profile of a given social issues campaign and its host organization, bringing extra media coverage, attracting new audiences, demystifying campaign issues, encouraging sponsorship and raising public awareness (‘UNICEF people’ n.d.). Supporters of new philanthropy also often praise celebrity philanthropists as exemplary citizens who ‘can act as prisms through which social complexity is brought back to the human level’ (Turner, Bonner and Marshall 2000: 166). Nancy Gibbs (2005), for example, endorses Time magazine’s naming of Bono and the Gates’ as its ‘Persons of the Year’ in 2005, by arguing that rock stars and billionaires are expected to be shallow and extravagant and removed from everyday social concerns because of their fame and wealth. The decision of certain celebrities to ‘care about’ causes that are neither sexy nor dignified ‘in the ways that celebrities normally require’ leaves no one with a valid reason to sit on the sidelines. New philanthropy, according to Gibbs (2005), not only encourages and demands active citizenship, but also promotes political passion, as opposed to passive pity, by building on the hope that the poor and socially vulnerable ‘are fully capable of helping themselves if given the chance’. Supporters of new philanthropy further praise celebrity involvement in international development issues for promoting global citizenship and extending democratic values. The concept of global citizenship is philanthropic insofar as it refers to a form of cosmopolitan and ethical citizenship that is motivated by both local interests (love of family, communal fairness, self-interest) and global interests (care for humanity and an active responsibility to tackle socio-economic inequality and safeguard the environment) (‘What is global citizenship?’ 1997; Noddings 2005). Celebrity involvement in development issues arguably promotes these goals by reaching new audiences, especially young voters in western-liberal democracies who may feel that the current political system not only denies them adequate representation, but also has failed to deliver an effective solution to the problem of dire poverty (Cooper 2007b: 6; Duvall 2007: 2). For example, the invitation extended to rock stars Sir Bob Geldof and Bono to speak about poverty in Africa at two G8 summits may constitute a positive response to the legitimacy problems associated with the G8 – an organization criticized at extensive mass protests in developed nations for being an exclusive club composed of elite representatives from wealthy countries and being negligent on its promise to address the structural imbalances in globalization (Cooper 2007b: 2–4). Celebrity advocacy is thus praised for its inclusiveness and democratizing potential, for its perceived capacity to break ‘the hold of established elites on political agendas and the discourse about policy’ and lend ‘powerful voices to the disenfranchised in society and at the world stage’ (‘t Hart and Tindall 2009: 271). Conversely, critics of new philanthropy, whether referring to celebrity philanthropy or corporate social responsibility, insist that it undermines the transformative potential of the discourse of humanitarian assistance – its promotion of the need for positive social change – by relying on market forces, that is, the economic system that arguably creates inequality, poverty and the need for philanthropy in the first place (Nickel and Eikenberry 2006: 5–6: Nickel 2012: 165). Viewed from this neo-Marxist perspective, new philanthropy is a false or bastardized form of philanthropy in that it promotes consumption, profit and media celebration as the best means to demonstrate care for humanity. Such marketized philanthropy celebrates a continued culture of global capitalism, and disguises the exploitative nature of big business by advancing the notion of ‘giving back’ through increased consumption – buying celebrity-endorsed products from which a portion of the profits are donated to humanitarian organizations – without acknowledging that it means giving back that which has already been taken away (Nickel and Eikenberry 2006: 9). It is not a discourse of social change, but rather a celebration by the privileged of the status quo. Hence, Slavoj Žižek (2006) describes Bill Gates as a paradigmatic figure of our times, both a ruthless entrepreneur and the greatest philanthropist in the history of humankind. Celebrity philanthropy is further decried by critics for turning global citizenship into theatre (show business) and undermining the goals of the UN Charter – to create a world without war and a world that has respect for human rights, international law and social and economic progress (Alleyne 2005: 176; de Waal 2008; Nash 2008). Celebrity involvement with the UN is undoubtedly increasing. The UN’s Department of Public Information ran two conferences for the UN’s growing ranks of celebrity advocates between 2000 and 2002, calling the second conference ‘Celebrity Advocacy for the New Millennium’ (Alleyne 2005: 177–9). At the start of 2015, thirteen celebrities held the title of UN Messengers of Peace, a program that began in 1997, and around 170 famous people were involved in the Goodwill Ambassadors program, which began in 1953 (‘Goodwill Ambassadors’ n.d.; ‘The United Nations Messengers of Peace’ n.d.). The UN’s adoption of celebrity advocates, as with that of many other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and humanitarian agencies, aims to achieve brand awareness by distinguishing such organizations in the public eye from other competitors (Cottle and Nolan 2007: 865). Abandoning the former use of crisis imagery, the UN and other international organizations such as Oxfam have made celebrities the visual focus of campaigns that are designed to shape the global citizens of tomorrow by promoting public awareness of humanitarian issues, and the need to final lasting solutions to poverty and related injustice around the world (Alleyne 2005: 179; Fain 2008: 1). For critics, the use of celebrities to promote global citizenship and humanitarian concerns is problematic because the aims of international aid organizations are potentially compromised by their growing reliance on ‘the practices and predilections of the global media’ (Cottle and Nolan 2007: 862, 865). This convergence is accused of leading to shallow and questionable media coverage of important social issues (Cottle and Nolan 2007: 869, 874), diverting money and organizational resources away from the work of aid, distorting agenda-setting through a focus on ‘safe’ international issues while indulging ‘a more palatable liberalism that operates at a safe remove from controversial issues at home’ (Magubane 2008: 19), and guiding fans towards ill-conceived solutions to complex problems (Cooper 2007b: 11–13; Littler 2008: 242). It is further condemned for exacerbating existing regional inequalities between North and South or developed western nations and ‘the rest of the world’, by promoting wealthy western celebrities and first-world hegemony, eliding the faces and voices of indigenous aid workers and the non-western poor, and positioning the non-destitute, non-celebrity consuming subject as a kind of neutral in-between (Cooper 2007b: 13; Cottle and Nolan 2007: 870; Duvall 2007; Fain 2008: 4; Littler 2008: 246; see also the collection of articles in a special issue of the Third World Quarterly 2014, 35, 1.). Critics further condemn the mediatized use of celebrities to promote global citizenship and humanitarian concerns for undermining the principles of representative democracy. A standard complaint is that celebrity advocacy and politics thrives on admiring fans, not on discriminating citizens, and enables a form of leadership that is driven by fame, admiration and dramaturgy, rather than by election, representation and accountability (‘t Hart and Tindall 2009: 256; Kapoor 2013: 1, 115; Rojek 2014: 128). On the one hand, celebrity involvement in humanitarian-philanthropic causes is accused of hijacking the political process, replacing real substance with ‘pseudoevents’ and ‘pseudoleadership’ (Weiskel 2005: 399), or bringing ‘more superficiality and less substance in our political process’, and potentially skewing ‘civil discourse towards solutions which may not represent effective long-term remedies for complex policy problems’ (West 2007: 1, 2; see also Jagger 2005: 13; Weiskel 2005; Fullilove 2006; Collier 2007: 4; Dieter and Kumar 2008). On the other hand, it is accused of providing an attractive yet problematic new vehicle for counter-consensus that not only detracts from more radical protest and political mobilization, but also obliterates alternative, progressive voices (Cooper 2007b: 13). Last, but not least, celebrities are tarred with the taint of false consciousness or even blatant hypocrisy because their philanthropic activism acts as a kind of brand extension, and is therefore a part of the process of making and consolidating a celebrity (Kapoor 2013: 19–25). Celebrity philanthropists not only get to ‘stay in the news even when they have no new movie or CD to promote’ (West 2007: 5), but also get to pull their personas out of the crude zone of narcissism and extravagant consumption and into the quasi-religious and heroic realm of altruism, compassion and caring (Harris 2003; de Waal 2008: 44; Littler 2008: 239, 241). Critics consequently present celebrity philanthropy as a contradiction in terms. Stars cannot be true philanthropists because of their vested interests as stakeholders in the capitalist system. They can only ‘play’ at being the saviours of the disadvantaged because of their advantaged status as the personalized embodiment of wealth and privilege gained from the systematic exploitation of the poor (Harris 2003; Littler 2008; Nickel and Eikenberry 2009; Rojek 2014: 133). In short, critics conclude that celebrity philanthropy has transformed the perceived traditional emphasis of philanthropy on compassionate benevolence and social change into a racist form of humanitarian voyeurism and individualistic commercialism (de Waal 2008: 54; Fain 2008: 6–12; Nickel and Eikenberry 2009: 3–6; Rojek 2014: 130). Far from creating active global citizens, new philanthropy (re)creates a privileged class of western consumers who believe that they can deliver salvation to the rest of the world by consuming the ‘right product’ (see Collier 2007: 4; Magubane 2008: 13). Philanthropy allegedly is no longer focused on the sufferers and their plight, but rather on the personal philanthropic experiences of celebrities and donors (Fullilove 2006). Celebrity philanthropy consequently is condemned as symptomatic of the individualistic, overly commercialized and unequal nature of modern (western) societies (Harris 2003: 5). Rethinking philanthropy + celebrity Criticisms of celebrity as a means to market philanthropy and international humanitarian organizations are often well founded. Celebrity marketing per se is a risky business as numerous examples of individual perversity attest. In 1994, supermodel Naomi Campbell appeared naked in a People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) campaign advertisement featuring the tag line ‘We’d rather go naked than wear fur’. Much to PETA’s dismay she went on to disregard the informing ethos of the campaign by wearing a fur coat while walking down the runway at a Fendi fashion show in March 1997 (Destries 2007). Christian Dior in China, one of the world’s strongest-growing cosmetics markets, suffered major setbacks when its celebrity endorser, Sharon Stone, implied that the millions of victims of the Sichuan earthquake in 2008 got what they deserved because of China’s treatment of the Dalai Lama (Rein 2009). Both examples support the claim that celebrities are more concerned about their own agendas than the products and causes they endorse, and therefore constitute inadequate spokespersons for serious humanitarian issues. Examples can also be found that support claims that celebrity philanthropy as promoted through governments, big business, the UN and other international humanitarian agencies, should be abandoned or, at the very least, could be better managed. For example, the Band Aid phenomenon has been criticized for inadvertently prolonging the war in Ethiopia through the ‘indiscriminate supply of humanitarian aid to the Mengistu government’, which some people claim was diverted to purchase arms (de Waal 2008: 52; Rojek 2014: 130). Yet it is equally clear that adopting an attitude of blanket cynicism towards celebrity philanthropy is often not only ‘unhelpful and likely undeserving’ (Stewart 2007: 5), but also analytically misdirected. Negative examples of celebrity involvement in philanthropic work and activism can be countered with reference to positive, albeit contested, examples of the same. Just as the work of Bono and Geldof is credited with bringing the issue of poverty relief in Africa to the attention of audiences on a previously unimagined global scale (Cooper 2007b), so too actor Angelina Jolie’s work with the UN Refugee Agency has received enormous publicity on celebrity Internet sites and in women’s magazines (Duvall 2007; see also Bell and Marshall, in this volume). UNICEF, for example, contends that singers, actors and athletes are ideally situated to perform certain roles for the organization because leveraging fame can introduce social justice issues to large sectors of the population who might otherwise not have been interested. According to UNICEF, the use of fame or star power is ‘positive’ because: Celebrities attract attention, so they are in a position to focus the world’s eyes on the needs of children, both in their own countries and by visiting field projects and emergency programmes abroad. They can make direct representations to those with the power to effect change. They can use their talents and fame to fundraise and advocate for children and support UNICEF’s mission to ensure every child’s right to health, education, equality and protection. (‘UNICEF people’ n.d.) This conclusion is premised on the simple fact that celebrity gossip tabloids have vast readerships comprising both people who admire celebrities and those who ‘love to hate’ them. People magazine, for example, has a weekly circulation base of more than 3.5 million and its online version might have website traffic of 50 million page views per day (Lulofs 2013). Viewed from this perspective, some argue that it is not the superficiality of celebrity philanthropy and humanitarian activism that ‘needs closer examination but the superficiality of the dismissal by its critics’ (Cooper 2007b: 17). Claims by critics that celebrity-mediated involvement in humanitarian causes has corrupted a ‘better’ form of global humanitarianism are especially problematic. Simon Cottle and David Nolan (2007: 862) maintain that the NGO practice of using celebrities to ‘brand’ themselves in the media jeopardizes ‘the very ethics and project of global humanitarianism that aid agencies historically have done so much to promote’. Daniel Harris (2003: 10–11) contends that celebrity philanthropy ‘damages the effectiveness of relief agencies’ because it undermines the integrity of philanthropic organizations as something that ‘transcends the forces of capitalism’. New philanthropy obviously is not a ‘cure-all’ for the geo-political and socio-economic inequalities associated with economic globalization. However, the claim that consumption-based and celebrity-mediated philanthropy undermines ‘authentic’ humanitarian values is brought into question if we acknowledge that the development of international humanitarianism, like celebrity, has itself been closely tied to the historical development of capitalism and the mass media. Reference to some historical examples undermines the implied dichotomy between philanthropy/international humanitarianism – understood as among the highest and noblest expressions of human civilization – and media sensationalism/celebrity culture – construed as evidence of the trivial and deplorable nature of contemporary consumer society. To cite Zine Magubane (2007: 374–5), during the nineteenth century, the ‘ideology of the “White Man’s Burden”, with its emphasis on “Christianity, Civilization, and Commerce,” married philanthropy, entertainment, and consumerism’, turning imperial progress into a ‘mass produced consumer spectacle’. The history of organized philanthropy and international humanitarianism is enmeshed with the history of European and US colonial projects, and thus the development of global capitalism. Entertainment, spectacle and publicity were intrinsic components of western missionary work in South Africa during the mid-1800s, for example. Unlike colonial government officials and traders, the missions and missionaries relied on voluntary contributions from ‘home’, which meant that publication was crucial to their survival (Curtin 1964: 325). The strategic packaging and disseminating of images of African suffering and ‘noble savagery’ was an acknowledged way of generating public interest in and charitable donations for the ‘civilizing mission’. Ethnographic texts and public exhibitions of native peoples and customs were not only extremely popular, but also made frequent reference to famous missionaries and their work in Africa (Magubane 2007: 374–5). Hence, ‘consumption philanthropy’ in the humanitarian arena and the associated ‘othering’ of the non-west is not exactly a new phenomenon, even though it now occurs on a different scale and in different forms. The American Red Cross offers another example of the historical links between international humanitarianism and mass/consumption-based philanthropy. Kevin Rozario (2003: 427) describes how World War One and the imperatives of funding war-time relief turned amateur charity organizations such as the American Red Cross into national and professional fundraising entities that resembled efficient corporations: ‘hiring directors, recruiting teams of trained canvassers, planning campaigns, employing strict accounting methods, and developing the sort of door-to-door solicitation strategies’ that make it difficult for ‘ordinary’ members of the public to avoid donating small amounts of money to worthy causes. Such organizations also began to pay attention to the ‘science of publicity’ and the question of ‘how to appeal’ in such a way as to be appealing to broad sectors of the population who might not be motivated by any such presumed universal human sentiment as ‘compassion’ (Rozario 2003: 427–8; see also Zunz 2012: 58–9). Contrary to idealized conceptions of philanthropy as a natural affective response to the sufferings of strangers, charity organizations during the period of the First World War began to exploit the opportunities presented by an emerging ‘mass culture of movies and mass-circulation newspapers’ to ‘beguile’ millions of people of modest means into ‘acts of benevolence’ (Rozario 2003: 423, 429). The American Red Cross, ‘which was initially granted exclusive control over the distribution of government war films’, began to promote international humanitarianism alongside often racist wartime propaganda and scenes of violence and human suffering (Rozario 2003: 432). It recruited stars from Broadway and Hollywood to promote mass fundraising drives and publicized its activities in romantic, wartime motion pictures such as The Spirit of the Red Cross (dir. James Flagg 1918). The American Red Cross magazine also dramatically boosted its sales by running ‘red-blood stories of suffering and want, of valor and sacrifice’, alongside advertisements urging its readers to serve humanity by buying products from its sponsors, which included ‘Wrigley’s chewing gum, Jell-o, Lucky Strike cigarettes, beauty products, and even marital guides’ (Rozario 2003: 439, 437). As these examples suggest, the claim that contemporary humanitarian organizations are compromised by their growing reliance on marketing and the media may be overstated. International aid organizations as we know them have always devoted as ‘much attention to advertising as to ethics, and to “entertainment” as to education’ (Rozario 2003: 429), because they depend on mass philanthropy. Also contrary to understandings of philanthropy as the disinterested expression of a ‘love of mankind’ (Sawaya 2008: 203), it appears that successful philanthropic organizations are those that generate ‘interested expressions’ of humanitarian concern. The mediatized marketing exercises of the early American Red Cross were undoubtedly effective. Its membership swelled from 20,000 in 1914 to 20 million, with an additional 11 million ‘junior’ members, by the declaration of Armistice on 11 November 1918. In addition, the American Red Cross raised USD 400 million during the same period (Rozario 2003: 433). Although the vast majority of new members joined the organization after the US entered the war in April 1917, the Red Cross flourished not simply by selling patriotism and ‘anti-Hun’ sentiment, but also by competing with commercial ventures through the creation of consumer ‘wants’ and the provision of ‘thrills’ (Rozario 2003: 444). The organization’s publications, films and fund-raising efforts aimed to elicit compassionate benevolence by combining the act of feeling good in the moral and political sense with the act of feeling good in the pleasure sense. Charity consequently may be a longstanding feature of human society. However, as Rozario (2003: 419) concludes, humanitarianism only became a mass phenomenon when philanthropy became a commercial marketing venture, and ‘donors began to be treated and courted as consumers who had to be entertained’, in order to meet the funding requirements of war-time relief efforts (see also Thompson 2002). Successful philanthropic organizations inevitably exploit individual ego and desire to obtain ‘interested’ resources because they trade in compassion, an emotion that implies a social relation, with the emphasis being placed on what the privileged spectator over here feels and does in practice for the suffering ‘other’ over there (see Berlant 2004). Deriving from ‘the Latin com, together with, and pati, to suffer’, the term ‘compassion’ described from the fourteenth century to the start of the seventeenth century both suffering together with one another, participation in suffering, or fellow feeling between equals, and an emotion felt ‘when a person is moved by the suffering or distress of another, and by the desire to relieve it by offering succor (‘Compassion, n.’ 2012). However, the first sense of the term soon became obsolete. Compassion in the contemporary sense of the word is an emotion felt on behalf of someone in distress by someone who is free from it, and who is in this respect their superior, and who has the surplus resources required to ameliorate another’s suffering, if they wish to or feel obliged to do so (‘Compassion, n.’ 2012). The modern association of philanthropy with voluntarism and/or moral obligation is indicated by the draft inclusion in the OED Online in 2002 of a new term ‘compassion fatigue’ – ‘apathy or indifference towards the suffering of others or to charitable causes acting on their behalf’ (‘Compassion, n.’ 2012). Reference to notions of voluntarism and moral obligation suggest that the compassionate actor has to be induced to ‘give’ by receiving something in return –a commercial product and/or the individual pleasure/relief of knowing that one has helped to meet, perhaps with public acknowledgement, the expressed needs of the ‘deserving’ as relayed through the public entreaty of an humanitarian organization. Both forms of recognition or ‘reward’ are based to varying degrees on the hierarchical categorization of human suffering in terms of deserving recipients of donations and those who are deemed to be less deserving by default. In short, there is no ‘authentic’ form of organized philanthropy that can be held up as a mirror to reveal a set of problems that are assumed to be specific to the new phenomenon of celebrity philanthropy (see also Marshall, in this volume). Philanthropy per se is an ethically complicated business because it thrives on the interaction between two forms of socio-political inequality that are tied to modern conceptions of ‘good’ citizenship. This is the assumed obligation and benevolence of those who have ‘(the power of the rich)’, and the assumed rights and entitlement of those who need ‘(the power of the poor)’ (Garber 2004: 26). Claims by critics that mediatized celebrity involvement in humanitarian causes encourages social and political apathy are also problematic. Ilan Kapoor (2013: 1) argues that ‘celebrity humanitarianism’ is ‘fundamentally depoliticizing’ and ‘contributes to a “postdemocratic” political landscape, which appears outwardly open and consensual, but is in fact managed by unaccountable elites’. Daniel Harris (2003: 12, 10) contends that the professionalization of philanthropy, as exemplified by celebrity philanthropy, has helped to create an ‘apathetic, uninvolved society’ because ‘it reinforces the notion among the general public that charity is the exclusive province of the fabulously rich who are the sole members of the community capable of solving social problems’. Another common criticism, as noted by Paul ‘t Hart and Karen Tindall (2009: 256), is that celebrity politics, including celebrity activism on international humanitarian causes, thrives by virtue of the public behaving as ‘admiring fans’ rather than ‘discriminating citizens’. Consequently what celebrity activism offers those who follow it is a leadership of the ‘well-known’ rather than a leadership of the ‘well-qualified’, echoing Daniel Boorstin’s (1972: 57) famous dismissal of celebrities as people who are known merely for their ‘well-knownness’. This style of criticism is misdirected for at least two reasons. First, the ‘well-knownness’ of celebrities may empower them to talk to an extraordinary range of audiences and political leaders on subjects about which they are not ‘official experts’. However, it does not empower them to act with impunity or without restraint because they are subject to constant media surveillance and public scrutiny (Stewart 2007). Far from constituting an easy, self-serving and ‘unaccountable’ means to stay famous (Kapoor 2013), celebrity philanthropists and activists are subject to forms of public scrutiny that equal, if not exceed, ‘the accountability regime of parliamentary scrutiny and political journalism’ (‘t Hart and Tindall 2009: 273). Celebrity philanthropy and the engagement of fans with such activism could therefore function to stimulate public involvement in humanitarian endeavors and/or demand greater transparency from relevant policymakers (‘t Hart and Tindall 2009: 271). This has certainly proved to be the case in the authoritarian People’s Republic of China, where repeated accusations of celebrity charity fraud in Internet chat-rooms have forced A-list celebrities –international film star Zhang Ziyi, for example – to make the financing of their philanthropic activities more transparent (see Jeffreys, in this volume). Second, the use of social media by fans to mobilize their peers to engage with humanitarian causes in the symbolic name of a given celebrity is a development that challenges understandings of celebrity-related philanthropy as fundamentally a top-down media-led exercise that encourages social alienation and political apathy. In China, for example, fans of pop music and film stars have side-stepped both the mainstream media and government organizations by establishing philanthropic initiatives in the names of specific celebrities. These initiatives typically begin as transient communities built around celebrity and contexts provided by the recent expansion of social media in China, rather than as registered charities with legal support. Despite the time and energy required to organize them, they usually have no connection initially to a real-life celebrity other than the symbolic community created by the use of their name and they provide little or no financial benefit to the individual fans concerned. The successful nature of some fan-driven philanthropic initiatives has prompted their named celebrities to subsequently offer them different forms of support. Pop star Li Yuchun now actively endorses the fund created by her fans – the Yumi [fans of Li Yuchun] Charity Fund (Yumi aixin jijin), when she won a Chinese reality television music competition and the most-watched TV show in Chinese history in 2005. Li Yuchun, or Chris Lee as she is known in English, has since released more than 50 number-one singles in the PRC and is the first mainland Chinese pop star to have won multiple international music awards, including topping superstar Justin Bieber to win the award for Best Worldwide Act at the 2013 MTV European Music Awards gala, with ‘a total of more than 100 million global votes’ (Li 2013). Since 2006, fans of Li Yuchun have worked with the China Red Cross Foundation to raise funds of around CNY 10 million to help children with leukemia and improve rural health care. Fans have also established an online charity auction site and six health centres in poor rural regions of China that are run mostly by volunteers (‘Yumi aixin jijin’ 2011; ‘Yumi aixin jijin 2013 niandu juanzeng kuan’ 2014). These forms of social activism are neither a direct product of celebrity egoism, nor the imperatives of branded corporate capitalism. This suggests the need for different approaches to the analysis of the development and impact of celebrity philanthropy. A more nuanced approach would pay attention to how celebrity and celebrity-related philanthropy operates in cultural contexts other than the US and the UK (see Allatson, in this volume). In addition, it would consider how new forms of media have changed the way in which celebrities can aid philanthropic causes. Conclusion The term ‘philanthropy’ is imbued with critical and utopian – and hence debatable – ‘longings for transcendence of the contemporary economic and political scene’ (Sawaya 2008: 203), which are exacerbated by the addition of the term ‘celebrity’. Supporters of new philanthropy, including celebrity involvement in humanitarian causes, maintain a utopian faith in the ultimate capacity of neoliberal capitalism to bring prosperity to all (Bishop and Green 2008; Gates 2008). Critics, by contrast, suggest that new philanthropists are ‘the enemy of every true progressive struggle today’ (Žižek 2006), precisely because they promote the expansion of the free-market economy (see also Nickel 2012; Kapoor 2013; Rojek 2014). Celebrities enter into this debate as the branded faces of humanitarian causes who also embody individual wealth and privilege. Neither point of view engages with the phenomenon of new philanthropy and its prominent off-shoot of celebrity philanthropy in a constructive manner. The utopianism of proponents of new philanthropy is easily brought into question. While the expansion of the capitalist economy may lead to ongoing increases in wealth, there is no reason to assume that the wealth that is created will be distributed equally or ‘fairly’, or even in a way which allows all participants to live. It is also unrealistic to assume that those with wealth, whether CEOs or entertainment celebrities, will always make correct and socially responsible decisions about how that wealth can be used to the ‘greater benefit of humankind’, and that those decisions will necessarily improve upon the welfare initiatives of not-for-profit organizations and nation states. But the arguments of critics of new philanthropy are underpinned by an equally implausible utopianism – that the free-market economy can and must be dismantled and the welfare-state ideal can and must be revitalized (Kapoor 2013: 124–7). This option is problematic because the redistribution of wealth via a centralized state system and/or heavier taxes has proved to be unpopular historically, being associated with unwieldy, rigid, ineffective and corrupt modes of governance. Likewise, it discounts examples of nations, such as those in Latin America, which have no history of welfare state governance as would be understood in western European or North American terms, and no significant traditions of philanthropy as understood in western capitalist and state terms. Rather, scholarship on philanthropy in Latin America and among Latinos in the US indicates instead a long history of religious giving within the Catholic Church apparatus and via mutual-aid organizations, and an established tradition among the continent’s class elites of funding building projects and donating to causes relating to disaster relief, children, education, and the arts (‘Latino philanthropy literature review’ 2003; Sanborn and Protocarrero 2005; see also Allatson, in this volume). Given the impracticality of effecting system-wide changes in the immediate future, critics of celebrity involvement in humanitarian causes are obliged to suggest how organized philanthropy might be done otherwise, and none do this convincingly. They offer criticism tinged with moral outrage, but little in the way of concrete suggestions. Moreover, despite the proliferation of intellectual complaints about the privileged, superficial and racist nature of celebrity philanthropy in the international arena, there are hardly any empirical studies of how celebrity-involved or celebrity-inspired philanthropy operates in practice in the context of developing countries, and what it does for local recipients and how it is viewed and understood by them. Such studies are vital to any informed critique. As the example of China would suggest, empirical studies of the local development and impact of celebrity philanthropy in developing countries are required, in order to provide a comparative framework for analysis, to redress the western and Anglophone focus of existing analyses, and to understand the possibilities that may arise from different forms of organized and enculturated philanthropy. Acknowledgements This research was supported under Australian Research Council’s Future Fellowship funding scheme (FT100100238). References Alleyne, M.D. (2005) ‘The United Nations’ celebrity diplomacy’, SAIS Review, 25, 1: 175–84. Andersson, J. (2007) ‘Pop-culture icons as agents of change? The roles and functions of celebrity activists in peace- and development related global issues’, MA thesis, Växjö University, School of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Development Studies, http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:vxu:diva-1710. Accessed 9 January 2015. Andrew, D.T. (1989) Philanthropy and Police: London Charity in the Eighteenth Century, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Berlant, L. (2004) ‘Compassion (and withholding)’, in L. Berlant (ed.) Compassion: The Culture and Politics of an Emotion, New York: Routledge, pp. 1–14. Bishop, M. (2007) ‘Fighting global poverty: Who’ll be relevant in 2020?’ Brookings Blum Roundtable, 1 August, www.brookings.edu/events/2007/~/media/Files/Programs/Global/brookings_blum_roundtable/2007bishop.pdf. Accessed 1 April 2012. Bishop, M., and Green, M. (2008) Philanthrocapitalism: How the Rich Can Save the World, New York: Bloomsbury Press. Boorstin, D. (1972 [1961]) The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America, New York: Atheneum. Carnegie, A. (1889) ‘Wealth’, North American Review, CCCXCL, 391: 653–64. Collier, P. (2007) The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries Are Failing and What Can Be Done About It, Oxford: Oxford University Press. ‘Compassion, n.’ (2012) Oxford English Dictionary, second edition, 1989; online version March 2012, Oxford: Oxford University Press, http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/37475. Accessed 29 March 2012. Cooper, A. (2007a) Celebrity Diplomacy, Boulder; London: Paradigm Publishers. Cooper, A. (2007b) ‘Celebrity diplomacy and the G8: Bono and Bob as legitimate international actors’, Working Paper 29, The Centre for International Governance, http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Digital-Library/Publications/Detail/?ord516=OrgaGrp&ots591=0c54e3b3-1e9c-be1e-2c24-a6a8c7060233&lng=en&id=39553. Accessed 9 January 2015. Cottle, S., and Nolan, D. (2007) ‘Global humanitarianism and the changing aid-media field’, Journalism Studies, 8, 6: 862–78. Curtin, P. (1964) The Image of Africa, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. de Waal, A. (2008) ‘The humanitarian carnival: A celebrity vogue’, World Affairs: A Journal of Ideas and Debate, Fall: 43–55. Destries, M. (2007) ‘Naomi Campbell lashes out at PETA, still sounds lame’, Ecorazzi, 13 September, http://www.ecorazzi.com/2007/09/13/naomi-campbell-lashes-out-at-peta-still-sounds-lame/. Accessed 9 January 2015. Dieter, H., and Kumar, R. (2008), ‘The downside of celebrity diplomacy: The neglected complexity of development’, Global Governance, 14: 259–64. Duvall, S-S. (2007) ‘“Ambassador mom”: Angelina Jolie, celebrity activism, and institutional power’, paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, San Francisco, 11 December, http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p172714_index.html. Accessed 18 January 2011. Fain, S. (2008) ‘Celebrities, poverty and the mediapolis: A case study of the ONE Campaign’, paper presented at the London School of Economics Media and Humanity, Conference, September, London, http://voices.yahoo.com/the-one-campaign-celebrity-poverty-mediapolis-3097851.html. Accessed 20 March 2014. Flagg, J. (dir.) (1918) The Spirit of the Red Cross, motion picture, USA: Committee of the National Association of the Motion Picture Industry. ‘Foundation fact sheet’ (1999–2015) Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, http://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/Pages/foundation-fact-sheet.aspx. Accessed 9 January 2015. Fullilove, M. (2006) ‘Celebrities should stick to their day jobs’, Financial Times, 1 February. Garber, M. (2004) ‘Compassion’, in L. Berlant (ed.) Compassion: The Culture and Politics of an Emotion, New York: Routledge, pp. 15–28. Gates, B. (2008) ‘Making capitalism more creative’, Time, 31 July, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1828417,00.html. Accessed 9 January 2015. Gibbs, N. (2005) ‘The good Samaritans’, Time, 19 December, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1142278,00.html. Accessed 9 January 2015. ‘Goodwill Ambassadors’ (n.d.) United Nations Messengers of Peace, http://outreach.un.org/mop/goodwill-ambassadors/. Accessed 9 January 2015. Harris, D. (2003) ‘Ladies among lepers: The nonprofit celebrity’, Southwest Review, 88, 2: 291–300. ‘t Hart, P. and Tindall, K. (2009) ‘Leadership by the famous: Celebrity as political capital’, in J. Kane, H. Patapan and P. ‘t Hart (eds) Dispersed Democratic Leadership: Origins, Dynamics, and Implications, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 255–78. Huddart, S. (2007) ‘Do we need another hero? Understanding celebrities’ roles in advancing social causes’, McGill-McConnell Papers, The Centre for Voluntary Sector Research and Development. Jagger, B. (2005) ‘Real people power, or pernicious platitudes?’ New Statesman, 11 July: 13, http://www.newstatesman.com/200507110006. Accessed 29 March 2012. Kapoor, I. (2013) Celebrity Humanitarianism: The Ideology of Global Charity, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. ‘Latino philanthropy literature review’ (2003) Donor Research Project, Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society, City University of New York, http://www.philanthropy.org/programs/literature_reviews/latino_lit_review.pdf. Accessed 9 January 2015. Li, S. (2013) ‘Chris Lee wins MTV EMA Worldwide Act’, China.org.cn, 11 November, http://www.china.org.cn/arts/2013-11/11/content_30560519.htm. Accessed 9 January 2015. Littler, J. (2008) ‘‘‘I feel your pain’’: Cosmopolitan charity and the public fashioning of the celebrity soul’, Social Semiotics, 18, 2: 237–51. ‘Look to the stars: The world of celebrity giving’ (2006–15) Look to the Stars, http://www.looktothestars.org/. Accessed 9 January 2015. Lulofs, N. (2013) ‘The Top 25 U.S. consumer magazines for June 2013’, Alliance for Audited Media, 6 August, http://www.auditedmedia.com/news/blog/2013/august/the-top-25-us-consumer-magazines-for-june-2013.aspx. Accessed 9 January 2015. Luscombe, B. (2006) ‘Madonna finds a cause’, Time, 3 August, http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1222449,00.html. Accessed 9 January 2015. Magubane, Z. (2007) ‘Oprah in South Africa: The politics of coevalness and the creation of a black public sphere’, Safundi, 8, 4: 373–93. Magubane, Z. (2008) ‘The (Product)Red man’s burden: Charity, celebrity, and the contradictions of coevalness’, Journal of Pan African Studies, 2, 6: 1–25. Nash, K. (2008) ‘Global citizenship as show business: The cultural politics of Make Poverty History’, Media, Culture and Society, 30: 167–81. Nickel, P.M. (2012) ‘Philanthromentality: Celebrity parables as technologies of transfer’, Celebrity Studies, 3, 2: 164–82. Nickel, P., and Eikenberry, A. (2006) ‘The discourse of marketized philanthropy in fast capitalism’, Center for Public Administration and Policy, Blacksburg: Virginia Tech. Nickel, P. and Eikenberry, A. (2009) ‘A critique of the discourse of marketized philanthropy’, American Behavioral Scientist, 52, 7: 974–89. Noddings, N. (ed.) (2005) Educating Citizens for Global Awareness, New York: Teachers College Press. ‘Our story’ (n.d.) (RED), http://www.red.org/en/about. Accessed 10 January 2015. ‘Philanthropy’ (n.d.) Philanthropy Australia, http://www.philanthropy.org.au/about-us/vision-and-mission/. Accessed 9 January 2015. Rein, S. (2009) ‘Celebrities and China: Marketing hell’, Forbes.com, http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/11/china-phelps-drugs-leadership_0211_marketing.html. Accessed 9 January 2015. Richey, L.A., and Ponte, S. (2008) ‘Better (Red)TM than dead? Celebrities, consumption and international aid’, Third World Quarterly, 29, 4: 711–29. Rojek, C. (2014) ‘“Big citizen” celanthropy and its discontents’, International Journal of Cultural Studies, 17, 2: 127–41. Rozario, K. (2003) ‘“Delicious horrors”: Mass culture, the Red Cross, and the appeal of modern American humanitarianism’, American Quarterly, 55, 3: 417–55. Sanborn, C., and Protocarrero, F. (eds) (2005) Philanthropy and Social Change in Latin America, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Sawaya, F. (2008) ‘Capitalism and philanthropy in the (new) gilded age’, American Quarterly, 60, 1: 201–15. Stewart, D. (2007) ‘Celebrity led humanitarian interventions: Blanket cynicism vs. a framework for success’, 29 November, http://www.winstonchurchillbc.org/images/PDF/2008%201st%20Prize%20paper%20-%20Drew%20Stewart.pdf. Accessed 10 October 2010. Sulek, M. (2010) ‘On the modern meaning of philanthropy’, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39, 2: 193–212. ‘The United Nations Messengers of Peace’ (n.d.) United Nations Messengers of Peace, http://outreach.un.org/mop/. Accessed 9 January 2015. Thompson, A.S. (2002) ‘Publicity, philanthropy and commemoration: British society and the war’, in D. Omissi and A.S. Thompson (eds) The Impact of the South African War, New York: Palgrave, pp. 511–27. Traub, J. (2008) ‘The celebrity solution’, New York Times Magazine, 9 March, p. 38. Tsaliki, L., Frangonikolopoulos, C.A., and Huliaras, A. (2011) Transnational Celebrity Activism in Global Politics, Bristol, UK; Chicago USA: Intellect Press. Turner, G., Bonner, F., and Marshall, P.D. (2000) Fame Games: The Production of Celebrity in Australia, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. ‘UNICEF people’ (n.d.) UNICEF, http://www.unicef.org/people/people_ambassadors.html. Accessed 9 January 2015. Weiskel, T.C. (2005) ‘From sidekick to sideshow: Celebrity, entertainment, and the politics of distraction. Why Americans are ‘sleepwalking towards the end of the Earth’, American Behavioral Scientists, 49, 3: 393–403. West, D.M. (2007) Angelina, Mia, and Bono: Celebrities and International Development, Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution. ‘What is global citizenship?’ (1997) Oxfam Education, http://www.oxfam.org.uk/education/gc/what_and_why/what/. Accessed 20 March 2014. Wheeler, ‘Celebrity politics and cultural citizenship: UN Goodwill Ambassadors and Messengers of Peace’, in L. Tsaliki, C.A. Frangonikolopoulos and A. Huliaras (eds), Transnational Celebrity Activism in Global Politics, Bristol, UK; Chicago USA: Intellect Press, pp. 45–62. Wilson, J. (2014) ‘Stardom, sentimental education, and the shaping of global citizens’, Cinema Journal, 53, 2: 27–49. ‘Yumi aixin jijin’ [Fans of Li Yuchun Charity Fund] (2011) Zhongguo Yulewang, 1 August. Online. Available: http://news.67.com/cishanquan/2011/08/01/279827.html. Accessed 9 January 2015. ‘Yumi aixin jijin 2013 niandu juanzeng kuan wu shou zhi qingkuang shenji baogao’ [Fans of Li Yuchun Charity Fund Annual Financial Report] (2014) Chinese Red Cross Foundation, 19 August, http://new.crcf.org.cn/html/2014-08/24784.html. Accessed 12 January 2015. Žižek, S. (2006) ‘The liberal communists of Porto Davos’, In These Times, 11 April, http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2574/. Accessed 9 January 2015. Zunz, O. (2012) Philanthropy in America: A History, Princeton; Oxford: Princeton University Press. Elaine Jeffreys, Author submitted final copy, 12 January 2015 26