Charismatic violence and the sanctification of the super-rich

Abstract

Drawing historical comparisons between the 19 th century and the present, this paper describes and analyses how an elite section of the global rich, through mega-giving and a re-emerging notion of 'noblesse oblige' that is enshrined in the philanthrocapitalism movement, have fostered a sacred rationale for their extreme wealth. Not only do the new nobles hold the power of wealth but, through mega-giving, they generate a moral imagery akin to religious figures who ostensibly self-sacrifice for the good of everyone else. This generates a form of charismatic authority that affords the super-rich an influential space from which to spread a 'theodicy of privilege'-legitimating their elevated economic position, shielding growing wealth concentration from criticism, and sanctifying the claim that individual mega-wealth is collectively beneficial. Through its contribution to and facilitation of the inegalitarian status quo, this theodicy engenders various forms of structural violence. Here we explore the mechanisms that enable wealthy donors to position themselves as apparent benefactors of humanity, including a reliance on metrics that appear to justify the claim that targeted philanthropic expenditures can and are reducing global wealth and health inequalities, but which raise unanswered questions surrounding the actual effects of the outcomes claimed.

Avoiding Us versus Them: How Schools’ Dependence on Privileged “Helicopter” Parents Influences Enforcement of Rules

“… 2. In the United States, there is evidence of privilege-dependence in healthcare organizations (Arneill and Devlin 2002; Ryan 2016; Wright and Perry 2010), philanthropic organizations (McGoey and Thiel 2018; Silver 2007; Tompkins-Stange 2016), political campaigns (Heerwig 2018; Scarrow 2007), and, although possibly to a lesser extent, cultural and consumption-oriented organizations such as restaurants (Lehman, Kovács, and Carroll 2014; Zukin, Lindeman, and Hurson 2017) and retailers (Chao and Schor 1998; Geiger-Oneto et al 2013; Joy et al 2012). …”

Philanthrocapitalism: Promoting Global Health but Failing Planetary Health

“…A recent paper argues that a "theodicy of privilege" has obfuscated critical examination of philanthrocapitalism. Its authors claim that "it is laudable and even dutiful for immiserated workers to salute the donor class for directing its philanthropy at itself" [27]. Bloom and Rhodes have characterized philanthrocapitalism as "the transfer of responsibility for public goods and services from democratic institutions to the wealthy, to be administered by an executive class" [124].…”

“…Thus, in both Britain and the U.S., in the 19th and 20th centuries, respectively, it can be argued that inequality was lowered, at least temporarily, in order to avoid and to prevent an utter loss of elite privilege, such as occurred in France and Russia. In some cases, aristocrats may also have sincerely helped to support the cause of the common people ("noblesse oblige"-nobility obligates), motivated either by compassion, a sensing of these risks, or perhaps more likely, a combination of the two [27]. Philanthrocapitalists also emerged in this category; people such as Peter Cooper, Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, Henry Wellcome, and, more recently, Bill Gates, George Soros, Warren Buffet and others (see Table 1) [28,29].…”

Facts, power and global evidence: a new empire of truth

“…The ability to switch between 'theological' and 'empirical' justifications for democratic governance, on the one hand, and imperial conquest, racial subjugation and class domination, on the other hand, has not abated among elite figures today, even if social scientists have yet to fully explore the enduring pertinence and centrality of theology to twenty-first century capitalist expansion and social stratification (Blencowe, 2016;Comaroff, 2009;Cooper, 2011;Cooper & Graham, 2015;James, 2015;Konings, 2015;McGoey & Thiel, 2018). Concerned with the ways that evidence can act as both a form of 'ecstatic knowledge', in Kelly's phrasing, and a form of 'charismatic violence', as McGoey and Thiel suggest, our contributions call for a sociology of the 'new theology' to complement explorations of the 'new empiricism'.…”