Before I dive into this, let me preface this post by saying there is no way I can fully articulate everything I feel about this issue, but I’m going to at least try to speak to some of what’s been stewing in my head the past few days.
Do you guys remember when Dooce came back from Bangladesh and all hell broke loose on Twitter when people questioned her motives and raised the issue of poverty tourism? This latest brouhaha over the Kony 2012 campaign reminds me of her Bangladesh debacle. When that first went down, I wanted to blog about what was happening, but I didn’t feel like I could speak to one side of the issue or the other without being called either a troll (what Dooce’s detractors were being called) or a groupie (what Dooce’s detractors were calling her supporters). Now that plenty of time has elapsed and we have a new philanthropic movement to contend with, I feel like I can finally dip my toes into these tempestuous waters and hopefully articulate some of what is so frustrating and unsettling and hopeful about these situations.
To review, this is what we’ve seen repeated several times over now:
Steps to a Social Change Nightmare
1) Find a social good campaign, preferably in an underprivileged country with lots of brown people.
2) Get it some media attention. Stir, and watch what happens.
3) Wait until lots of people say, “Yay! Let’s all go save Darfur/Uganda/Bangaldesh/_______”
4) Wait until someone offers critique or criticism of the movement
5) Watch the original supporters get angry.
6) Let it all devolve into people being spectacularly rude to each other and calling each other nasty names on the internet.
Um…that was fun?
When all of this starts to unravel, you have to sift through all of the angry posts to get down to essentials. On the one hand, supporters say that doing something is better than doing nothing, and they say that raising awareness is the beginning of amazing change! On the other hand, detractors will point out that awareness doesn’t actually fix anything, and they point out how uninformed and misguided aid can do more harm than good. And I think that for most of us, this is incredibly frustrating. I’m no expert on NGOs or charity organizations or how and why certain forms of aid are better than others, and I’m going to guess most of you aren’t either. I also give a shit about what’s happening outside of my own little bubble, I want other people to give a shit about what’s happening outside of their little bubbles, I want all of us to be able to contribute to the greater good in whatever ways we can, and I’m guessing you feel the same way, too. But I’m also a critical thinker and sometimes a bit of a cynic, and I refuse to let rhetorically clever media pitches persuade me without doing my due diligence and checking my sources. These organizations and their messages need to pass muster with me before I will throw my voice, my time, or my money behind them. And the crappy part of this is that by putting a critical lens on these organizations, I will typically land on the detractor side of the fence no matter how meaningful the cause is to me, because they are all problematic in some way. I find independently un-audited financials problematic; I find high administrative salaries problematic; I find low percentages of funds directed towards the cause problematic; I find white savior complex problematic; and I find skewing the facts to tug at my heartstrings deeply, deeply problematic.
After going through the mental gymnastics required to get to this point I’m stuck in a catch-22. If I critique, I’m accused of inaction, which is a crime in and of itself, according to some. If I support, I’m accused of doing harm by funding imperfect organizations, which is also crime according to others. So what am I, what are any of us, supposed to do? There’s no point engaging with either side online, because the vast majority of the online conversations quickly turn into “You’re stupid!” “No, YOU’RE stupid!” “No, YOU’RE stupid and so is your mom and so is your dog!” fights. Pointless and a waste of time. Even when people bring relevant evidence, questions, and concerns to either side of the conversation, it isn’t long before civility is abandoned and punches are thrown in a virtual bar brawl.
And you know what else pisses me off? How very personally both sides take criticism. None of us knows anybody else’s motivations for certain, but would it kill us to assume that when it comes to social change and doing good in the world, your average citizen just wants to do the best that they can? Yes, there are always douchebags who will name-call and make it personal, but can we assume that when anyone else critiques a particular viewpoint, it’s not to personally insult those who espouse that viewpoint, but instead to bring critical thought and rhetorical analysis to make sense of a complex issue? Because while we’re busy insulting each other, unspeakable things are happening all around the world that we don’t stand a chance of stopping if we’re busy hurling insults at each other.
But now that I’m all riled up, here’s what I think we’re missing: there are really two different parts to this conversation going on at the same time, and I think we’re muddling them all together. The first part is the conversation about the individual organization. Someone, somewhere feels strongly enough about something that they bring it to the attention of other people. And there emerges from this a passion for an organization and its message and a conversation about convincing other people to invest their time and attention to this cause. Those conversations are (mostly) good, and important, and necessary.
There is, however, a second, meta conversation about HOW BEST to bring about social change, and what the best strategies are for dealing with the innumerable worthy causes to which we can devote our attention, which has nothing to do with any individual organization. What’s the best strategy for stabilizing the political situation in Central Africa that allows for child soldiers? What’s the best strategy to reduce maternal mortality worldwide? What’s the best strategy for reducing death rates from breast cancer? No one organization can deal with any of these issues by themselves. When this conversation about how best to do the work collectively and on a higher level addresses the individual organizations who are trying to do the work, you get really spectacular fireworks. Because this second conversation pisses people off, and it can kill the enthusiasm that stems from the first conversation because oh, hell, if these guys aren’t doing it right, then who is? And if no one is doing it right, shouldn’t we still be doing something?!
The Kony 2012 campaign has had at least one upshot in that people are using this as a lesson in researching non-profits, which I think is forcing people to engage with the meta part of the conversation, as uncomfortable as that might be. People are being challenged to evaluate whether their methods are sound based on experts in the field. People are being forced to question whether their finances sound and whether or not they espouse our values. And I hope that people will eventually realize that just because we critique an organization’s strategies, doesn’t mean we think their cause isn’t worth fighting for, it just means we think maybe there’s a better way to fight. And just because we support an organization, doesn’t mean we believe that they’re flawless. It just means that we’ve found peace with our decision to support them, hopefully through thoughtful research and critical analysis.
As frustrating as it is to watch all of this unfold across the internet, it boils down to this for me: we need to be talking about this, all of it. We need to be kind to one another and educate each other as much as we can. We need to make sure our kids are savvy in world affairs. We need the passion and enthusiasm for change, but we ALL need to research the hell out of our causes. We need to be careful of group-think, and we need to be able to accept the consequences of our choices if it turns out down the road that the group we supported yesterday turns out to not align with our values after all.
So now that I’m done on my soapbox, what do you think? What have these campaigns and conversations changed in your thinking and researching? How is your approach to social change and charitable work changing?
© 2012, OneShoeOff. All rights reserved.
