21st century activism produces unlikely leaders. Movements.org represents a new model of peer-to-peer training wherein these leader lends their experience in digital organizing, especially short term protests and campaigns, not just to each other but also to those whose expertise lies in long term capacity building.Can I get some cognitive dissonance up in here? 21st century activism DOES produce unlikely leaders if their model is followed; since when are activist leaders sponsored by the US State Department and a myriad of gi-fucking-gantic corporations?
Peer-to-peer? Right, I'll let the poor in the walled-off slums (literally, although also figuratively in a sense I'll address in a moment) of Rio de Janeiro know that all they have to do is charter a private jet so that they can come meet with you to discuss strategies for spreading democracy.
Moving away from them in particular, I'd like to address the 'at least they are doing SOMETHING good' sentiment about corporate social responsibility. I understand it, it seems pretty straightforward: some money invested in something important is better than none EVEN if the bottom line is still profit-drive (Andrew's point about the importance of positive branding). I am not going to restate the few things I mentioned in class, as I assume people can at least sort of remember what I was saying even if I was a little unclear and losing my shit.
Why stop at 'at least' statements? Why do we have to accept profit as the primary factor driving action by the world's big players?
I want to tie this in somewhat (though perhaps mistakenly) to our iSpy reading: the burden of social change is moved from those big players onto the consumers of their products. This makes us feel better and blinds us to the overall disparity between reality as it has unfolded and the interpretation these corporate entities are pushing. Let me give you an example that I often mention to people because I see it all the time at my job.
During October, we start carrying a bunch of products that come in pink for breast cancer awareness month. If you buy the pink products, a percentage of the proceeds from that sale goes to cancer research or some such (though I have never actually taken the time to look at the breakdown of where the money is spent, that's a separate matter I could probably rant about). Excellent! Breast cancer is bad, awareness is good, pink is good, Bic is good, Staples is good, and war is peace.
Why only during the month of October? Why only on certain products? Why not the whole proceeds (especially considering it doesn't even cover your entire line of products and you are making profit everywhere else)? Why not just give money to cancer research and not tie it to individual sales? Why tell us about it?
I'm not trying to say that the companies don't care about breast cancer awareness at all, but what I'm trying to point out is that breast cancer awareness is nowhere near the top of their agenda. Or the middle. Or somewhere between the middle and the bottom. Like Andrew said, the marketing that it is related to, though, is right at the god damned top.
And onto the larger point that ties into Andrejevic: The consumer is responsible for how much money these big players donate to breast cancer research. They are supposed to feel bad when they choose a black pen from a different brand because they like it more... don't they care about breast cancer?! I am not allowed to dislike the pink stuff at work. I can't talk to customers about it, but it slays me on the inside.
Perhaps it's unintentional that arguing against corporate social responsibility actually makes me seem like the asshole, but somehow I doubt it. Complacency with this type of setup is bad enough, but outright approval of it? Give me a break.
I have lots of other homework to get to, I'll respond to any criticism or differing opinions or what-have-you in the comments.
I never addressed the point I was going to make about the kids in Brazil; mainly I was going to point out that this type of organization is exclusive and not inclusive in the sense that people without access to technology, etc. do not have a voice.
ReplyDeleteYoung people*!
*Except for a bunch of them
It's interesting what a big deal WE are making this Movements.org thing. Honestly, I had NEVER heard of it before it was assigned for class. All of your arguments are somewhat valid, except should only be worrisome if Movements.org gets as large as Facebook, or even Twitter, or heck, even MySpace (Now My____). These websites only seem to be targeted toward liberal college students and will not have much of an effect elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteTotally valid point. What do you think about Facebook censoring pages, though? I realize it's their right since it's their website, but clearly there is active censorship occurring on a website that could be used for political activism.
ReplyDeleteThe other thing is that it's not necessarily this one website on its own that poses the problem, it is the fact that this website represents a calculated effort by very big players that don't only exist on this website, and a tread could (and I would argue, has, actually if you look at the number of fake grassroots organizations that have popped up in recent years) be introduced into the political arena.
Andrew--there was a media blitz to frame the Egyptian revolution as a Facebook revolution. AYM folks were active in this, both on the Western media side and the actual April 6 FB group side. It's not like I just picked a random astroturf site for us to analyze. That you hadn't heard about them before doesn't mean they don't matter; also, becoming a massive social media platform isn't their goal, so it doesn't seem appropriate to use that as your basis for comparison.
ReplyDeleteBrian--when an advocacy group appeals to awareness the fur stands up on the back of my neck. Breast cancer is a great example--do any of the so-called awareness campaigns highlight carcinogens in our environment, our products, our food? Awareness is another word for "go to sleep."
I agree with Professor Dean's response to Brian. It's so interesting how certain campaigns reach out to young people for a certain causes, at a certain time, as if they're aren't equal or more serious problems in the world. There are starving people in Africa, but your movement would rather get my attention by cross promoting products that target my generation and once i'm drawn in, act like everything is alright. Not gonna work.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, i'm sure there are some grass roots organizations that truly have our best interests in mind, unfortunately the tactics they use to real us in make it seem as though they are trying to attract popularity to their company and what their about.