Can we stop raising awareness? Attention seeking at its best!

It's compassionate narcissism and performative action.

We have decades of research (put some after the article) showing that awareness is useful for diagnosis but is ineffective for resolution. So when I see people continuously raising awareness especially about topics that society has been talking about for years if not decades I kinda get suspicious.

Instinctively I never liked the Mother Theresa types. I am not against kindness or altruism, but against unexamined “moral goodness” that becomes an identity rather than a behavior measured by impact. The so-called “Mother Teresa type” refers to people or systems that see themselves as inherently good, which makes them resistant to feedback and blind to harm. Research shows that strong moral self-identification can lead to moral licensing (“I do good, so I can’t do harm”), paternalism disguised as compassion, and helping that removes agency rather than empowering others.

The core psychological risk is that compassion without accountability can justify neglect, control, and the normalization of suffering. When suffering is framed as virtuous and endurance as meaningful, real problems remain unsolved and criticism is dismissed as immoral or ungrateful. Psychology therefore emphasizes outcomes, consent, agency, and accountability over intentions because when goodness becomes immune to critique, that’s where harm hides most easily.

So yes, I am extremely weary of people who are always busy advocating for others because when you look behind the facade they achieve or/and do absolutely nothing apart from making noise, headlines, and fame for 5 min. You know the type.The Greta Thunberg-style moral theater. The social media activists who passionately advocate for immigration but vanish the moment they’re asked to host someone in their own home.

This isn’t care. It’s compassionate narcissism.

These hollow actions aren’t about the cause. They’re about visibility. Other people’s suffering - human or animal - becomes a prop for attention, content, and self-image.

Nothing irritates me more than white people “saving” Africans. Because if you actually ask children in orphanages or people in rural villages what they need, not one of them says:

• “I want Jennifer to teach me English”or

• “I want Debbie to paint the school.”

They ask for school supplies, properly sized clothing, period products for girls.

But those things aren’t Instagram-worthy. Jennifer and Debbie can’t parade around Africa for a few weeks, take photos, and post about how “this experience changed them.” And that tells you everything you need to know.

People who actually help usually do it quietly.

With my previous company, we built a school in Africa. I was incredibly proud of that project and I never posted about it. Not because it didn’t matter, but because not posting preserved the dignity of the children and their parents.

I do post about cleaning up mountains. Not to urge others to do the same but to remind them not to litter.

And while we’re on this topic: let’s also stop the messiah complex. Africans do not need saving. They are capable, resourceful, and doing just fine without outsiders arriving to preach, pose, and leave.

One final question we rarely ask

There are people in need in every country. So why do so many look everywhere except home?

Because helping far away is safer.

It allows people to care without proximity, empathy without inconvenience, and morality without accountability. Distant suffering is abstract. It doesn’t require long-term commitment, uncomfortable relationships, or the humility of dealing with real human complexity.

But there is an even safer version of this: not helping at all, while loudly claiming to care.

These are the people who don’t even go as far as traveling to the places they claim to be fighting for. They stay on their sofas, protest in their own countries, repost slogans, chant, shout, and demand actions from others. This is the purest form of distancing: maximum moral expression with zero personal cost.

Psychologically, this is not activism. It’s attention-seeking.

Protesting from a distance allows people to perform outrage without exposure to reality, without friction, without responsibility for outcomes. There is no feedback loop, no accountability, no need to stay when things don’t improve. If nothing changes, it doesn’t matter the performance is the point.

Helping at home or anywhere, really is different. It’s relational. It requires showing up when it’s inconvenient, staying when it’s boring, and taking responsibility when good intentions fail. It forces people to trade certainty for humility and slogans for solutions.

Distance also provides moral cover. Global causes sound bigger, purer, and more heroic. Local problems are messy and unglamorous. They expose hypocrisy, complicate narratives, and make it painfully obvious that change requires sustained effort, not declarations.

And finally, distance protects the ego. When you shout about injustice “out there,” you never have to confront how deeply those same problems are embedded in your own community, workplace, voting behavior, or lifestyle. Distant outrage avoids the uncomfortable truth that real change starts with doing, not declaring.

So when someone is endlessly vocal but never involved, never present, never accountable, never useful, it’s worth asking: Is this about impact, or is it about identity?

---

Key researches

• Sheeran (2002) – “Intention–Behavior Relations”→ Meta-analysis of 422 studies showed that intentions explain only ~28% of actual behavior.

• Webb & Sheeran (2006) – Interventions that changed intentions led to small to moderate behavior change at best.

Implication:People can be fully aware, fully convinced, and still not act.

• Marteau et al. (2012) – BMJ→ Information-based interventions have limited impact unless the environment changes.

• Kelly & Barker (2016) – American Journal of Public Health→ Education alone is one of the weakest behavior-change levers.

• Pronin, Lin & Ross (2002) – Bias Blind Spot→ People recognize biases in others but not in themselves, even when educated about them.

• Wilson & Brekke (1994) – Mental Contamination→ Awareness of bias rarely leads to correction without structural support.

Implication:Training people about bias doesn’t eliminate biased decisions.

• Pfeffer (1998; 2018)→ Organizations overinvest in training and underinvest in systems, incentives, and accountability.

• Beer, Eisenstat & Spector (1990) – The Critical Path to Corporate Renewal→ Awareness programs fail when structures and power dynamics stay the same.

Classic finding:

• You don’t change behavior by telling people to think differently.

• You change behavior by changing how work is designed, measured, and rewarded.

The COM-B Model (Gold Standard in Behavior Science)

Michie et al. (2011)

Behavior requires:

• Capability (skills)

• Opportunity (systems, time, tools)

• Motivation (not awareness)

Awareness only touches a small slice of motivation — and even that weakly.

Why Awareness Campaigns Persist Anyway

Because:

• They are cheap

• They shift responsibility to the individual

• They allow leaders to say “we’ve addressed it” without changing power, processes, or performance expectations

Research calls this “symbolic action”, not real change.