“Did you hear about Madonna?”

“Oh, you mean the whole adopting an African baby thing?” She responded as though adopting a baby was of the same caliber as that of buying a new sports car – which for celebrities, I suppose, it is.

“Yeah, I heard about it. Everyone says she’s trying to be like Angelina Jolie.”

We talked about the scandal surrounding Madonna’s African baby, renamed David, who is now shown on the cover of gossip magazines in Madge’s arms, clad in a puffy vest and a Kabala bracelet. My mom pointed out that if Madonna really wanted another baby, and even if she really wanted to save a life, she didn’t necessarily have to go all the way to Africa, Angelina-style. There are plenty of Asian, Latin American, and even North American babies who are available for adoption.

It is hard not to feel suspicious of Madonna for going through the trouble of traveling to Malawi, waiting for weeks to take home her baby due to arguments over legality with the Malawi government, and even battling with the baby’s blood father, who claimed he hadn’t understood what exactly “adoption” entailed – all of this just because she wanted to fit into what apparently has become a celebrity trend. Or did she have a genuine desire to save a life, in a country where there are “millions of orphans,” as she claims? Maybe Madonna was just plagued by bad timing. Still, celebrity activism can be seen as a strategic move. As Ken Sunshine, celebrity publicist, said in a Time article, “Charitable work rounds out and humanizes your image.” The “trendy activism” phenomenon is not limited to celebrities, but also reaches the general population. Although not quite the same as adopting an African baby to “be like Angelina Jolie,” Lance Armstrong’s yellow Livestrong bracelets to raise money for cancer provide an example. While created with the intention of helping a good cause, the yellow bracelets eventually became “cool” – everyone who was anyone was wearing them. They became so popular that people began selling them on eBay for up to $40 – money that was clearly not donated to cancer organizations.

This trendy activism manifests itself even on the Columbia campus, which is notorious for its activists and plethora of progressive student groups. The recent Minuteman protests are among the most glaring examples. The large turnout was gratifying, as protests rely on numbers, and a clear message was sent that Columbia students do not tolerate groups like the Minutemen. But it was also a little surprising that so many people all of a sudden took action on an issue which, prior to that night, had not been a prominent part of campus discourse.

Current co-president of the Columbia branch of Amnesty International Joel Beal, GS ’08, expressed concern that many college students are drawn to protests for superficial reasons. “I think there is a mentality among college students that protesting is something that you do at college, so absolutely people end up going to protests, even if they know very little about the issue. Maybe protesting draws more people simply because it’s easier to get involved – you don’t have to have expertise on the issue, you don’t need specific skills like knowing how to lobby a Congressperson or write a press release, and you’re usually not singled out and called on to do heavy work like research. All you have to do is decide that you think the Minuteman Project (or any other government or organization) is bad, and then show up with your body and your voice. That’s it. An easy way to make a change.

Perhaps “trendy activism” reaches the Columbia campus through students’ desire to fit in. In some circles, attending protests are an initiation rite, proving to your peers that you’re just as angry and outspoken as they are.

Assistant professor of sociology Dana Fisher doesn’t see it as merely jumping on the bandwagon, however. She has been researching activism for years and said that “most young people get involved based on earnest interest and because they care.” While she acknowledges that there are aspects of pop culture that make activism seem cool, she points out that they had more influence in the ’90s. In recent years, left-wing activism has actually declined, she maintains, due to the “failure of the anti-war movement and the death of the globalization movement, [which] made people less interested in activism.”

Fisher feels that so many people got involved in the Minuteman protest not because of the sexiness of protesting, but rather because the event “mobilized young people to express their opinions.” Everyone at Columbia has some sort of view on immigration, and having such an extremist speaker as Jim Gilchrist makes it easy for everyone to have some sort of response. “Young people have political opinions, and this was an opportunity to galvanize people on both sides.”

Fisher finds that people’s desire to look cool might push them to buy a Livestrong bracelet, but that this commodification is distinct from becoming involved with activist causes. “I wouldn’t say [it’s] a commodification of activism, but a commodification of consumption. I don’t see it in traditional forms of activism.” Traditional activism is genuine and based on a real desire to effect change, Fisher has found.

While Beal believes, like Fisher, that students who get involved in issues do care about those issues, he sees potential problems with students who get involved in political movements out of image consciousness. The varying commitment level to those causes reveals the impact of the trendiness factor. “There are people who are willing to go to a protest and yell, and those that are willing to spend time doing things that aren’t as glamorous, like making posters. It’s not to say that those people don’t care about the issue, it’s just that the less glamorous things are not a priority for them.”

Sometimes less dedicated activists can even cause problems. Beal said, “I think it is a mixed bag for sure. On a personal level, I’m always happy with more people. But on a more general level, it concerns me that people are so willing to come across as passionate on an issue that they know very little about.” This can lead to a problem when less knowledgeable participants go canvassing for an issue; they can make inaccurate statements, and sometimes they are forced to respond to questions by admitting they’re not totally sure, both of which can harm the perception people have of the issue.

And then there’s the kind of “activism” that appeals to upper-class white liberals looking to uphold their socially conscious personas by buying American Apparel hoodies. Many of these people will sit around and talk about how the world is coming to an end because of Bush, capitalism, and global warming, but then claim they don’t have the time to help make phone calls to the White House about Darfur (a very effective strategy, believe it or not).

In the end, though, some superficial activists will eventually become more dedicated. Beal says, “I’m always happy when people get involved, even if they’re not super-knowledgeable about the issue, because that could lead to them getting more involved. It is really a great way. You just hope that people take that next step.”

“Yuppie in hippie’s clothing” activists may not always be moved to action from pure-hearted motivations, but at least they’re moved to action. As Professor Fisher says, “If people want to drive a Prius to look cool, and it also helps the environment, there’s nothing inherently wrong with that.” Perhaps the ends do justify the means. We can’t get everyone to quit their jobs and devote their lives to stopping the genocide in Darfur. But we can convince them that plastic green Darfur bracelets are all the rage, and maybe get a buck or two out of them. Better than nothing, I say.