Humanitarian Communication and Capitalist Consumption: A Critical Analysis
Today more than ever, corporations and consumers are playing a substantial role in influencing humanitarian fundraising, communication and agenda. While one might simply see these humanitarian collaborations with capitalist consumption as vital in closing the funding shortfall resulting from growing humanitarian need and shrinking incomes to humanitarian organizations following the 2008/09 economic crisis, it is important to analyse their evolution as well as their merits and demerits. In this essay, I trace the evolution of humanitarian communication in relation to capitalist consumption from the era of the 1984/85 Band Aid and Live Aid anti-famine campaigns led by rock-star Bob Geldof to present-day Brand Aid collaborations with consumer-facing, billion-dollar companies like Nike and Apple as well as cutting-edge technologies firms such as virtual reality (VR) and serious gaming companies. I analyse the ramifications these changing collaborations have had on humanitarian communication — as well as on humanitarianism itself. I study how theories such as the humanitarian gaze (the power of humanitarian actors to see and frame the bodies and narratives of distant others as passive and helpless and themselves as heroic saviours), commodification (the packaging of caring for consumers in a neoliberal capitalist context) and media framing (how various actors construct narratives to make sense of a situation by defining, say, the nature of the problem or solutions) help us explain the changing dynamics in humanitarian communication (Daley, 2013; Spurr, 1993; Stones, 2015). While there are many forms of capitalism interfacing with humanitarianism today — ranging from social entrepreneurship, to buy-one-give-one cause-related-marketing campaigns, to corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs, to the humanitarian innovation movement, to traditional philanthropy, to philanthrocapitalism — , given the limitations in length, in this essay I will not discuss all of them in depth. Centrally, I argue that humanitarian actors’ collaborations with capitalist entities have led humanitarian communication to consistently gloss over the structures of global inequalities underpinning the problems they seek to redress whilst misrepresenting distant others and creating heroes out of western actors.
While the connection between media and humanitarianism dates back over a century, the link between money, media and humanitarianism was most powerfully cemented just over three decades ago when Bob Geldof led groups of celebrities in two major drives to raise funds to alleviate the Ethiopian famine: Band Aid, a recording of a popular song and Live Aid, one of the biggest rock concerts ever (Westley, 1991; Cooper, 2015). After watching Michael Buerk’s famous BBC report showing graphic scenes of starving Ethiopian children, Geldof, a member of the Irish band The Boomtown Rats — which incidentally had been experiencing a slump in popularity — felt compelled to record a song whose proceeds would go towards charitable organizations working for the famine relief effort in Ethiopia (Westley, 1991). Bringing together some of the biggest names in music at the time to form the supergroup, Band Aid, Geldof led the recording of Do they Know It’s Christmas, a song that would top charts in the UK over Christmas of 1984 and raise 8 million pounds for the relief effort. The following year, Geldof led the Live Aid concert which played simultaneously in Wembley Stadium in London and JFK Stadium in Philadelphia and broadcasted to a global TV audience of over 1.9 billion people — raising over 67 million pounds for the famine relief effort in the process (Jones, 2017). It was at this concert that Geldof infamously swore: “People are dying NOW. Give us the money NOW…. F*** the address, give us the phone, here’s the number” (Geldof, as quoted in Cooper, 2015, p. 67). As Cooper (2015) argues, the Live Aid concert served as a definitive point for “Consumer Aid”: the packaged disaster or cause that consumers could then contribute to either in cash or in kind through things like “lending their voices” or buying products like wristbands whose proceeds would go towards charitable causes. Over the past four decades, consumer aid has evolved as the humanitarian need has grown as well as technologies — particularly information communication technologies — have transformed. Hintz, quoted in Cooper’s article summarizes it as, “in the 80’s, we tried to “commoditize” [sic] it…in the 90’s we “experiential-ized” it…by the millennium 2000 we had “life-styled it” …and now, finally, we are “digitizing” it.” (Hintz, as quoted in Cooper, 2015, p.71).
Two major critiques levelled against Live Aid and Band Aid — as well as many subsequent consumer-facing humanitarian campaigns — are their simplistic, often negative, portrayals of distant others as well as their depiction of problems as emergencies without highlighting or changing the socio-political structures underpinning them. Scholars often discuss the negative portrayal of distant others under the framework of the humanitarian gaze: the power humanitarian actors wield to view and frame the bodies and narratives of distant others as passive, silent and weak (Spurr, 1993). The humanitarian gaze itself builds on the imperial gaze theory: the representation of the other through a western lens that objectifies their bodies and erases other elements of their being such as language, culture and agency (ibid). During the Live Aid concert, Bob Geldof took on a large-than-life heroic figure while the suffering Ethiopians were conspicuously absent. The images projected of them showed emaciated children and women — who did not speak — aligning to the notion of the “worthy victim” who is innocent, silent and non-political (Smith, 2009). They were not asked what led to the famine or what their lives entailed besides starvation (Clay & Holcomb, 1986). Which leads to the second critique of framing the famine as an emergency by ignoring the political, historical and economic context — in line with Calhoun’s theory of the emergency imaginary. The emergency imaginary is the social construction of our “grasping [of] problematic events, a way of imagining them that emphasizes their apparent unpredictability, abnormality and brevity, and that carries the corollary that response — intervention — is necessary” (Calhoun, 2004, p 375). In the emergency imaginary, the humanitarian response to what is depicted as a sudden, unpredictable and short-term problem which deviates from the norm — but which in reality is a product of an array of gradual and predictable factors — is what is most important. Humanitarian actors, in their communication, emphasize the urgency — using words like NOW! — and leave out the causes of the problem. Such a sense of urgency and need for intervention was central to Geldof’s presentation and he frequently used the word ‘now’ in his appeals (Cooper, 2015). The failure to consider the political causes and implications means that the underlying factors are not addressed — hence not solving the problem in the long term or building the community’s resilience to deal with similar occurrences in the future. On a pragmatic level it also hampers the efficacy of the intervention or even worsens the situation, as some observers noted with Live Aid where funds and legitimacy were appropriated by the Mengistu government in Ethiopia to justify a military-enforced relocation programme that resulted in even more deaths (Rieff, 2005).
Two decades after Geldof’s expletive at Wembley, another Irish rock-star would redefine the relationship between fundraising, celebrity, consumerism and humanitarianism. The stage this time: The World Economic Forum, an annual gathering of leading global business and policy leaders at Davos; the rock-star: Bono of the band U2. Bono, alongside Paul Farmer (a Harvard trained medical anthropologist) launched RED as a novel model to “raise awareness and money for the Global Fund by teaming up with the world’s most iconic brands to produce RED- branded products” (as quoted in Richey & Ponte, 2011, p. 1). RED has partnered with some of the biggest consumer brands such as Apple, American Express, Microsoft, Starbucks, Durex and Gap to develop RED lines of products with these companies — a percentage of profits from these go directly to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria in Africa (Richey & Ponte, 2011). RED co-branded products are heavily marketed in the UK and US markets, although they are available in other markets — and in its first five years, RED contributed $160 million to the Global Fund (ibid). Looking at the sheer numbers, Bono like his predecessor, appears to have struck the magical formula for humanitarianism by injecting it at the heart of two aspects that pervade modern neo-liberal culture: celebrity and consumption. However, put into perspective the $160 million only represents 1% of the contributions to the Global Fund yet it is still seen as a significant and innovative model for both practical and symbolic purposes. In addition to harnessing the widespread media coverage, partly due to Bono’s eccentric personality and his connections in the entertainment industry, RED also leverages upon the brands of its co-branding partners to raise contributions from individual consumers. In launching RED, Bono and his team built an example of what Richey and Ponte (2011, p. 10) call Brand Aid: a model that provides “aid to brands” and “brands that provide aid” …as well as “rebrands aid itself”. While Brand Aid models may take different forms such as buy-one-give-one campaigns like the shoe-brand TOMS or co-branding campaigns like RED, the crux of these models are a trinity: a brand, an aid celebrity and a cause (ibid). These models do not challenge capitalist consumerism or the production processes and their inherent inequalities unlike older ethical consumerism movements — Richey and Ponte call this new agnosticism to capitalist production processes while pursuing compassion through Brand Aid consumption causamerism.
With its emphasis on innovation, efficiency and strategy, RED shows some traits of other forms of modern-day intersections of capitalism and humanitarianism like philanthrocapitalism, CSR and the humanitarian innovation movement. This essay does not delve deep into these other forms, but it is important to review how they influence Brand Aid models and humanitarian communication. Advocates of these corporate approaches to humanitarianism argue that applying business tools and models to humanitarian and developmental causes yields more impact (Green & Bishop, 2008). Situated in a capitalist system, these approaches shun “bleeding-heart way” of marketing humanitarian causes, instead promoting it as good for business. Their catch-phrases are “doing well while doing good” and “the triple bottom line.” They embrace Silicon-Valley-esque ideologies with their infinite praise for concepts like lean teams, innovation, the value of failure — in what Tom Scott-Smith (2016) calls humanitarian neophilia. As Richey and Ponte (2011) point out, some advocates see these approaches as the best way to reach younger and more hip audiences — and in a sense as the redeemers of an aid industry battling decades of criticism (Scott-Smith, 2016, p. 2303). Humanitarian communication thus becomes more about how cool the cause is by linking it with a brand and a celebrity while de-contextualizing the problem and proposed solutions. These are key features of Chouliaraki’s post-humanitarian communication style which eschews politics as well as grand narratives and emotions like pity, instead favouring simplified aesthetics that focus on the brand and celebrities fronting a cause (Chouliaraki, 2010).
However, the strengths of Brand Aid approaches to humanitarian fundraising and communication, also contribute to their weaknesses. Firstly, their reliance on celebrities should be interrogated given that studies show that celebrities usually draw attention towards themselves and away from causes and their politics even when they attempt to create authentic portrayals of distant suffering (Chouliaraki, 2012). Also, audience studies (e.g. Brockington and Henson, 2015) have shown that audiences report paying less attention to celebrity news than previously assumed. Secondly, these approaches tend to replicate similar caricatures of distant others as those of their predecessors. Their notions of saving, say Africa, are overly-simplified — especially when the suffering is commodified i.e. packaged into a sellable product such as bracelets, KONY 2012 action packs or co-branded DurexRED condom packs. Western actors are cast as desirable, compassionate heroes — even sexually free and attractive in the case of DurexRED and Humanitarians of Tinder (Richey 2016) — while those in distant suffering are marginalized from the picture or used as props to stir compassion for their own suffering. This is compounded by the tendency to replace expertise and rational debate with celebrity endorsement which questions less.
Thirdly, these approaches retain the humanitarian actors’ power to frame problems in developing nations and recommend solutions — which they do in problematic ways. According to Stones (2015) media framing in the context of distant suffering is how various actors construct narratives to make sense of it by defining: the nature of the suffering, the causes and contexts, the actors and powers relevant to it, normative judgements and the recommended treatments or solutions. In the case of Brand Aid, the underlying socio-political causes of suffering are usually left out. The complicity of global capitalism in producing suffering and inequality is not challenged by Brand Aid campaigns; instead, capitalism and its actors are often consecrated — endorsed as engaging in legitimate forms of ‘humanitarian’ activity (Darras 2005; Richey & Ponte, 2011). As Giorgio Armani, the Italian designer who’s partnered with RED, brazenly described its magic, “the new formula is that this is charity to the world of course, but particularly it is the fact that commerce will no longer have a negative connotation” (as quoted in Richey and Ponte, 2011). This consecration of corporate and capitalist actors serves to de-politicize the narrative and lend more legitimacy and value to the brands of these actors. Therefore, unlike in ethical consumerism where observation of fair practices in production is crucial, Brand Aid campaigns crop those out. As such, their solutions tend to treat the symptoms and not the root causes of the problems. For instance, by decontextualizing trade and AIDS in Africa, RED frames the solution to the AIDS problem as greater access to ARV pills and not, say, improved socio-economic conditions or higher quality sex education. For TOMS, providing shoes to “poor Africans” becomes a panacea — even before consulting with them on their actual needs.
Fourthly, Brand Aid approaches to humanitarian communication threaten the independence and voices of humanitarian actors in criticizing capitalist entities which might be complicit in the production of distant suffering. The financial partnerships with corporates may make humanitarian actors less critical and inadvertently lead them to align with the values and the market logic of corporate actors. For instance, in 2013 Save the Children, the British-based NGO, was accused of self-censoring by quashing critical press releases when dealing with large British corporate sponsors in the oil industry (Milmo, 2013). Yet, some practitioners argue that while ideally it may make moral sense to keep away from corporate sponsorships or co-branding efforts, as incomes from traditional sources shrink, these partnerships are more instrumental to their fundraising efforts. To borrow the phrase from Nolan and Mikami (2012), they might argue that it is one of the “the things we have to do.” But this “necessary-evil” defence is unconvincing. Even when faced with such conflicts, humanitarian actors need to steady themselves in their values by guarding their independence and voicing their rejection of unfair practices despite the financial risks.
The relationship between humanitarianism and capitalist consumption is also being shaped by the rapidly changing technology and media landscapes. As I wrap up, I briefly discuss how partnerships between humanitarian organizations and private technology companies in digital media, VR and serious gaming (mental contest, played with a computer and in accordance with specific rules, that uses entertainment to further government or corporate training, education, health, public policy or strategic communication objectives) are currently shaping humanitarian communication (Zyda 2005, cited in Djaouti et al., 2007). These tools are diverse and work in different ways but as Scott (2014) points out, for virtual reality and gaming platforms, one of their main goals in humanitarian applications is to bring distant suffering closer by affecting the ways that audiences experience space and time. Also, their interactivity and ability to incorporate audiences into their virtually-produced spaces enable a richer and, often, more active engagement than traditional media do. Humanitarian collaborations with VR and serious games to develop films such as Clouds Over Sidra and games such as This War of Mine have been hailed by techno-optimists as innovative approaches that reach younger, tech-savvy audiences in novel ways. However, concerns over the high costs of producing the games and films — and whether the money would be better spent elsewhere are also quite common (Raessens, 2015). Also, given their entertainment value, there are concerns over the technologies drawing attention to themselves and thus detracting from the humanitarian messaging. The creators of these technologies often discuss them in euphoric, utopian styles but if the crises facing major social media companies such as Facebook (with data breaches and hate speech) are anything to go by, it is important to be more balanced and nuanced when analysing the impact that VR and serious gaming technologies will have on humanitarianism and humanitarian communication as they become increasingly important. Moreover, as Scott-Smith (2016) points out, these initiatives need to seek deeper understanding of the complex humanitarian problems and find ways that include the social and political elements to their solutions — flashy technology and devices alone are not enough to change the world.
In closing, I have demonstrated that while forms of humanitarian collaboration with capitalist consumption have evolved significantly from the 80s with Band Aid to today’s Brand Aid models, humanitarian communication is still grappling with similar concerns like decontextualizing suffering and misrepresenting distant others. I have also shown that greater involvement with corporate and private actors over time has compounded these problems for humanitarian communication. These alliances — while instrumental in fundraising — often frame distant others as backdrops to the stories of their own suffering or crop them out completely. Also, I have argued that humanitarian actors’ increasing decontextualization of problems and their waning independence as they adopt market-oriented values is worrying. Greater and more nuanced representations of distant others that welcome their input it all its complexities and at all levels and deeper understanding of the social and political contexts surrounding their challenges are still needed to better communicate and address them. Additionally, as they collaborate more with capitalist actors, humanitarian actors need to re-define their values devoid of capitalist influences and find ways to maintain their voices and identity in this changing landscape.
References
Brockington, D. and Henson, S., 2015. Signifying the public: Celebrity advocacy and post-democratic politics. International journal of cultural studies, 18(4), pp.431–448.
Calhoun, C., 2004. A world of emergencies: Fear, intervention, and the limits of cosmopolitan order. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie, 41(4), pp.373–395.
Chouliaraki, L., 2010. Post-humanitarianism: Humanitarian communication beyond a politics of pity. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 13(2), pp.107–126.
Chouliaraki, L., 2012. The theatricality of humanitarianism: A critique of celebrity advocacy. Communication and critical/cultural studies, 9(1), pp.1–21.
Clay, J.W. & Holcomb, B.K., 1986. Politics and the Ethiopian famine, 1984–1985 Revised., Cambridge, Mass.
Cooper, G. (2015). Give us your ****ing money” A Critical Appraisal of TV and
the Cash Nexus. In: G. Cooper & S. Cottle (Eds.), Humanitarianism, Communications and
Change: 19 (Global Crises and the Media). (pp. 67–77). Peter Lang. ISBN 9781433125263.
Daley, P., 2013. Rescuing African bodies: celebrities, consumerism and neoliberal humanitarianism. Review of African Political Economy, 40(137), pp.375–393.
Darras, E., 2005. Media Consecration of the Political Order. Bourdieu and the Journalistic Field. R. Benson and-. Neveu. Cambridge. Polity.
Djaouti, D., Alvarez, J., Jessel, J.P. and Rampnoux, O., 2011. Origins of serious games. In Serious games and edutainment applications (pp. 25–43). Springer, London.
Green, M. and Bishop, M., 2008. Philanthrocapitalism: How the Rich Can Save the World. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Press.
Jones, A., 2017. Band Aid revisited: humanitarianism, consumption and philanthropy in the 1980s. Contemporary British History, 31(2), pp.189–209.
Milmo, C., 2013 The price of charity: Save the Children exposed after seeking approval of energy firms [online] Available: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-price-of-charity-save-the-children-exposed-after-seeking-approval-of-energy-firms-8994225.html [Accessed: 5th December 2018].
Scott, M., 2014. The mediation of distant suffering: An empirical contribution beyond television news texts. Media, Culture & Society, 36(1), pp.3–19.
Scott-Smith, T., 2016. Humanitarian neophilia: the ‘innovation turn’ and its implications. Third World Quarterly, 37(12), pp.2229–2251.
Smith, D.J., 2009. Big-eyed, wide-eyed, sad-eyed children: Constructing the humanitarian space in social justice documentaries. Studies in Documentary Film, 3(2), pp.159–175.
Spurr, D., 1993. The rhetoric of empire: Colonial discourse in journalism, travel writing, and imperial administration. Duke University Press.
Raessens, J. F. F., “Playful Identity Politics — How Refugee Games Affect the Player’s Identity.” In Playful Identities — The Ludification of Digital Media Cultures, edited by V. Frissen, S. Lammes, M. de Lange,J. de Mul, and J. Raessens, 245–260. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2015.
Richey, L.A., 2016. “Tinder Humanitarians”: The Moral Panic Around Representations of Old Relationships in New Media. Javnost-The Public, 23(4), pp.398–414.
Rieff, D., 2005. Cruel to be kind? [online] Available: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jun/24/g8.debtrelief [Accessed: 5th December 2018].
Stones, R., 2015. Why current affairs needs social theory. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Westley, F., 1991. Bob Geldof and live aid: the affective side of global social innovation. Human Relations, 44(10), pp.1011–1036.
