Madonna wants to adopt an 18-month-old child, David Banda, from Malawi, notes Breda O'Brien. There has been much condemnation of her action, most of which has rightly focused on whether it is really in the interests of the child.
There are other questions, though, including Madonna's controversial involvement with Kabbalah Centre, which is deeply connected to her recent excursion to Malawi.
Reaction from Africans regarding the adoption, with the exception of children's rights groups, has generally been more positive than from Europeans and Americans. Perhaps it has something to do with Africans having intimate familiarity with the grinding reality of poverty in Africa, and the very real possibility that this little child might not live to adulthood if left in the orphanage. It is equally true that there has been more attention focused on Malawi in the past week than for years beforehand.
The fate of this one little boy has generated more public debate and concern than the reality that an entire country has been devastated by drought, famine, severe poverty and Aids. We may criticise Madonna's actions, and there are good reasons for concern, but most of our protests lack credibility in the face of our apparent indifference to the fate of thousands of children like him.
On the face of it, it is better for a boy to be adopted than to live a lonely and deprived life in an orphanage. Yet many troubling questions arise, not least the question of Madonna's motivation. There are those who say that adopting someone from another culture and another race is automatically suspect, but that is not my view. Other people would say that it would be more just to help to support an entire family or even a village, rather than to remove just one child.
For the average childless couple, the longing for a child has a visceral reality hard to explain to someone who has never experienced it. Most would not be in a position to fund a family or a village, and it might be a counsel of perfection to expect them to do so in preference to adopting a child. Yet Madonna is neither childless nor in receipt of an average income. In fairness to her, she has promised huge amounts of aid to Malawi orphans, of whom there are nearly a million in a population of 12 million.
It is disturbing, however, to visit the website of Madonna's chosen charity, Raising Malawi, and to realise that it is run under the auspices of Michael Berg and the Kabbalah Centre. This version of Kabbalah has been constantly mired in controversy, and it is clear from the website that along with "physical support" such as food, medicine and clothing, the orphans will be getting "psychosocial counselling". A curriculum will be developed based on the principles of Spirituality for Kids, known by its detractors as Kabbalah for Kids.
The Kabbalah Centre so favoured by Madonna was founded by Philip Berg, father of current director Michael Berg. It has been plagued by allegations of cult-like activity and rampant commercialism.
A BBC investigative report by John Sweeney in 2005 claimed that it expertly milked its adherents for money, and took advantage of cancer sufferers, claiming that it could cure the disease with expensive water. It seems to have little in common with the practices of the original form of Kabbalah, which stems from mystical Judaism. Certainly, it is in bad odour with mainstream Jewish adherents of the Kabbalah. They say that Kabbalah, Berg-style, is both corrupt and psycho-babble. The study of the original, non-Hollywood version of the Kabbalah is confined to men over the age of 40, and can never be given for money.
Sharon Von Guens, who became involved with the Kabbalah Centre in London attended by Madonna, claims that it is riddled with exploitative and manipulative practices. A 10-week course on the power of Kabbalah cost more than £300. A red string worn by all followers cost £17. She was pressured to buy a copy of the Zohar, sacred text of the follower of Kabbalah, for more than $500. She was told to get a second credit card and to borrow money to finance a trip to Israel. Pressure to attend more and more expensive classes followed, including one, bizarrely, in palm-reading. The founders of the Kabbalah Centre live in luxury in Beverly Hills. The Los Angeles Centre alone grossed $27 million in 2005. The founder's wife lives a pampered life, with 40 adoring volunteers called chevras who cater for her every wish.
Obviously, it would be rather difficult to commercially exploit children in Malawi. It would be interesting to see an audit of where donations go, though. It seems entirely wrong too to make Spirituality for Kids a central facet of any aid. A cynic might say that it is no more than Christians did for centuries, but most missionary activity of the mainstream churches has long moved on from tying aid to conversions. Today there is far greater sensitivity to culture, and to the need to respect the autonomy of those who are being helped.
Yet why does it take something like Madonna's actions to focus attention on places like Malawi? How willing are we to make even small adjustments to achieve justice for developing countries, for example, by buying fairly-traded goods? Malawi needs long-term commitments to agricultural and educational projects.
To return to the little boy whose entire life has now changed, adoption is supposed to be primarily for the good of the child. It is not to satisfy the needs of the parents, though obviously it is usually enormously rewarding.
In this case, it is hard not to feel that the "material girl" has effectively bought custody of David Banda, and that people in less privileged circumstances would not be allowed to flout a Malawi requirement for 18 months' residence in the country. Madonna and Guy Ritchie have temporary custody for the next 18 months, more than long enough for a small child to bond with them. Given the circumstances, not least the fact that his potential parents are deeply involved in a highly dubious organisation, it is difficult not to worry about the fate of David Banda.