Invisible Children, as many readers may know, is less a film than a social movement in the US. Three young filmmakers set out to make a movie about the Sudan. They didn’t find their war in the Sudan, though. They found it in northern Uganda. Their movie did more to bring the Lord’s Resistance Army and the war in northern Uganda to US audiences, especially Congress, than any other advocacy organization on the planet. That deserves credit.
But why oh why, I have to ask, does it have to be in ways like this:
Last week I bemoaned the new ‘abduct yourself’ campaign and film. Many asked why, including their Mission Director. Here’s what I wrote back:
Well, to be truthful, the hipster tie and cowboy hat was a little much. But there are more substantive things to be said about the new film.There are a few famous TV documentaries about Africa, by the likes of Basil Davidson and Ali Mazrui. The funny thing about these shows is that they are less about Africa than they are about Davidson or Mazrui. The new IC film clip feels much the same, laced with more macho bravado. The movie feels like it’s about the filmmakers, and not the cause. There might be something to the argument that American teenagers are more likely to relate to an issue through the eyes of a peer. That’s the argument that was made after the first film. It’s not entirely convincing, especially given the distinctly non-teenage political influence IC now has. The cavalier first film did the trick. Maybe now it’s time to start acting like grownups.
There’s also something inherently misleading, naive, maybe even dangerous, about the idea of rescuing children or saving of Africa. It’s often not an accidental choice of words, even if it’s unwitting. It hints uncomfortably of the White Man’s Burden. Worse, sometimes it does more than hint. The savior attitude is pervasive in advocacy, and it inevitably shapes programming. Usually misconceived programming. The saving attitude pervades too many aid failures, not to mention military interventions. The list is long.
One consequence, whether it’s IC or Save Darfur, is a lot of dangerously ill-prepared young people embarking on missions to save the children of this or that war zone. At best it’s hubris and egocentric. More often, though, it leads to bad programs, misallocated resources, or ill-conceived military adventures. There’s lots of room for intelligent advocacy.
There are a few other things that are troubling. It’s questionable whether one should be showing the faces of child soldiers on film. And watching the film one gets the sense that the US and IC were instrumental in getting the peace talks to happen. These things diminish credibility more than anything.
A little harsh, perhaps. Comments from readers?
Not too harsh. Bravo Chris, bravo.
Professor,
My first reaction to the letter was: YES, EXACTLY. But looking back, not so long ago, I was also a very naive teenager with good intentions but little idea how to act on them. I think examples of programs that are boastfully about “saving Africans” but have done more harm than good would be very helpful.
J
Well said! It needed to be said, and you didn’t come across as rude, if that’s what you were worried about.
The mass marketing of a humanitarian cause inevitably cheapens and simplifies it, no? You sentimentalize; you sloganeer; you deploy (if you’re lucky) a Hollywood star or two; you promise your facebook followers that solutions are at hand, if only the government does x or y or z. Condensing a human rights report to a bumper sticker is not a job for the squeamish. As long as the marketeers don’t totally distort the reality, or call for counter-productive measures, what harm is done–except to those of us with more sophisticated palates?
My quarrel is different. Our real problem is not that our activists Disneyfy their causes; it’s that they are too polite, too respectful, insufficiently insubordinate. We need human rights versions of Act Up and GreenPeace, we need fewer petitions and more guerrilla theater. Candidate Al Gore, for example, was embarrassed into reversing his position on intellectual property rights for AIDS drugs in Africa only by the disruptive demonstrations of few determined activists. And what sort of actions would have been appropriate during the Rwandan genocide? Given how the US and the UN responded–what wouldn’t have been?
–Emin Pasha, CongoResources.com
I’d be interested if you thought this coverage was better than no coverage.
This criticism reminds me of the string of posts about development tourism. No doubt people with a lifetime of knowledge are valuable, even invaluable. However, not everyone is in a position to make the sacrifices necessary. What I don’t like is any claim that, just because I or others have not devoted ourselves fully to the cause, our efforts are naive and counterproductive. I would think a basic awareness is better than nothing at all, but I stand to be corrected.
P.S. After the beers in Sydney, it would be great to catch up next time you are in DC.
Perfectly put. My first reaction on seeing the first film was very similar; it was a self-centered, indulgent mess. Great point about the slightly exploitative tendencies, especially of showing the kids’ faces.
Parking lot sleepovers do absolutely nothing to actually help the children of northern Uganda.
Fantastic. As an undergrad at Michigan, I work with an advocacy organization, and sometimes I run into some really dumb ideas – one of which reminded me of the IC thing. The students working for Habitat for Humanity here are holding a 24 hour sit in on the Diag (the central part of campus) so that students may ‘understand what it is like to be homeless’. Not only is this terribly offensive, and condescending (as if 24 hours outside on a campus can teach what it’s like to be homeless), it also has that essence of what you said – it’s time to be grownups. Long story short, I loved your response.
I absolutely agree (though I haven’t seen the new film).
I talked with aid workers in Gulu and the rest of Uganda in the first half of 2007, and IC was met with unrestrained and unparalleled scorn. I was told their NGO was an outcast in northern Uganda–”nobody in the NGO community even knows what they *do*” is, if I recall correctly, an exact quote. I remember myself yelling at my laptop screen when I finally watched IC myself–your own sentiments mirror mine.
The movie did little to project the lifestyle of northern Uganda and everything to broadcast the filmmakers’ ignorance–especially the naively optimistic launch of their “movement” towards the end. Everything about IC reeks of “zero research,” yet it’s supposedly a documentary.
I consider Invisible Children “questionable” at best when pondering the dilemma, “does aid do more harm than good?”
As for other advocacy projects: did Gulu Walk not make a mark in the United States? I found its positive effects were clearly visible in Canada and Uganda (notably Kampala, arguably far more important in terms of helping Acholi and Lango people than US Congress), all with a more humble and methodical approach. (All Canadians and most Ugandans I met had never heard of IC, while Gulu Walk seemed to have made camp in the backs of some people’s minds.)
Oh, please. I’m offended by the commenter who attacked a Habitat event. I don’t know how it works on your campus, but that description is really ignorant and — yes — condescending. The people who do these things (I didn’t) typically are doing so to *raise money* to *use* in a Habitat activity — either building houses, lobbying for affordable housing (and yes, successfully — the chapter on my campus had the city agree to build over 100 extra units due to its campaign alone) or what have you. While I don’t like Habitat personally because I think it puts too much emphasis on individual responsibility and typically shies away from the government having a larger role (its leadership is mostly conservative), it’s hard to argue that the fundraising is bad. Each person who sleeps outside might raise (again, I don’t know about your campus) $200 for the night spent chatting with their friends, and the people from whom they solicit donations are then more likely to support Habitat or other affordable housing NGOs rather than other causes. If you think affordable housing is more important than other issues, then sure, why not do it.
It’s only people entirely uninvolved who would be so condescending and presumptuous so as to suppose that those who are actually involved think that their night outside is like being homeless. The people involved on my campus, they were more aware that it was nothing like being homeless than anyone else. Talk about offensive and condescending! But they did it (and yes, in the face of widespread mockery) — not for showing off how sensitive and kind they are but so’s to be able to extract money from their friends and families for a concrete and transparent cause they wanted to support and had seen results from in the past.
I didn’t do it and I wouldn’t do it, but I’m not going to assume that the people who do are doing it because they’re misled little self-absorbed lambs. They see an outcome they want (money for their cause). They see a way to get it which is familiar from high school X-a-thons. You can debate whether this is the most efficient way to raise money, but don’t assume these people aren’t self-aware. (Or that they’re uninformed about the issues — just dragged in for the day. Do you really think people will bunker down in the snow outside in the middle of winter overnight with 10 strangers for a cause they just heard about, to feel sexy? Honestly? And as the night and the cold wears on? These are people who have been invested in the cause for a while, who know each other, who know the issues, and who certainly know more about affordable housing than you do.) There might be more productive things to do, but they’re doing the best they know how. There’s a reason it’s youth — it’s people who feel they can’t get substantial amounts of money in other ways. What they do know is that when they get personally involved in something, their friends and family (the latter especially) give them money. It’s just a different market. You could model it with them being low-skilled workers who don’t have training for other things, who get a lot of utility from doing things in groups, and who lack information about just how much they’ll raise (over-optimistic) and how much time it’d take to earn that money through a job. But it’s for a concrete goal, and they’re well aware it’s not like being homeless. The critique that they’re making assumptions and they’re self-promoting? Could be said about the commenter.
– Econ Ph.D. student, not a raging hippie activist.
thank you for this. those t-shirts are disgusting. i haven’t seen the film – i saw a preview online and was horrified. met some of the IC people in DC for lobby day two years ago and when a teenager in the audience asked how they can help, the response was “go there.” my jaw certainly dropped. i’m all for the activist movement, and IC has done a great job with organizing young people around a cause, but i think the mission has definitely slipped away. congrats IC, you raise tons of money and awareness – just as you said, chris, now it’s time to start acting like grownups.
I think you are spot on. Not at all rude, and I have the same feelings about IC. I have not seen the new film because frankly, I was appalled by the first. I was volunteering in Gulu at the same time as Adam Hooper (above…Hi Adam…), and my sentiments were/are the same. IC volunteers were seen as young hooligans, not much more. This also made it difficult for us, as young white volunteers, to gain the credit we wanted as a new NGO.
However, as you have also stated, their ability to raise awareness about this situation in the US is worthy of praise.
I have been arguing with people about IC for years. I am thankful for this blog.
Mr. Econ PHD non-raging hippie activist, are you really using Habitat for Humanity as an example of a good intervention? Using inefficient volunteer student labour instead of the dirt, dirt cheap labour in the recipient country?
–Another Econ PhD
I think you are quite nice to them, at least as long as sentences like this: “There’s also something inherently misleading, naive, maybe even dangerous, about the idea of rescuing children or saving of Africa.” describe reality.
Which it often, unfortunately, does. I believe this excellent statement from Lila Watson still describes the issue pretty good:
“If you have come to save me you are wasting your time. But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together.”
If you are not there on equal terms, your “objects” are better off if you are not there at all.
Fortunately, the internet connection in Gulu is not so great, so Ugandans are removed (at the moment) from this virtual reality.
IC up in Northern Uganda (which is indeed a different reality, except for when the filmmakers and volunteers drop in) is setting up some legitimate programs, such as their scholarship program which involves considerable mentoring and follow up BY Ugandan nationals. Does this sort of marketing delegitimize the good work? Certainly leaves a bitter taste in our mouths.
I’ve asked some Ugandan employees of IC what they think about the film. The response is shrugged shoulders. They disagree with the representation but perhaps think this is a necessary evil to get muzungu money to build schools and carry out their programs. I don’t think there is much room for constructive criticism by nationals in how IC is represented to the broader world.
I guess what also saddens me about IC is that they really have been so damn successful at it. Perhaps this is more a statement about us all.
I think the crux of the issue is the question you pose in the post. Namely, could IC actually have been so effective were it not for the media style that earns them immense criticism from academic and advocacy types?
I think the answer is mixed. I don’t think it does the complexity of the situation justice to write them off as ill-informed narcissists. Nor should we simply accept the massive influence they have wielded (utilizing an innovative model) without recognizing some shortcomings. The problem is that debate has been polarized, and I imagine the folks at the IC offices are tired and dismissive of the same angry criticisms.
But for the people posting here, I think there has to be a recognition that there is a strong justification for parts of their MO that make many squeamish.
IC has brought an entirely new constituency to these issues – in a recent survey of their supporters, something like 75% have no interaction with any other nonprofits or causes. While there is no doubt room for discussion about the sustainability of this movement (will their supporters continue to be engaged with issues post-IC?) as well as its intellectual honesty at times, their work has educated and galvanized hundreds of thousands of people about the LRA and northern Uganda. And it HAS had an impact – on US policy, and through their education programs on the ground. And even more than that, it expands the realm of the possible in terms of creating new allies here in the US (dare I say around the world, given their recent launch of a world tour?) in the fight for peace and development in Africa, with demographics that otherwise would be staying away.
Fundamentally, many advocacy groups are perpetuating (or in IC’s case, literally selling) a myth: that there is a pot of human rights gold at the end of the advocacy rainbow, and it can be reached if only enough US under-21s become “aware”.
This advocacy approach takes as a given that:
1) Complex African conflicts are resolvable via Western diplomatic pressure.
2) The US has the diplomatic means, contextual understanding, and influence necessary to apply such pressure in a constructive and useful way.
3) The US will choose to apply such pressure, provided that enough under-21s send postcards to Congress and the White House.
I’d suggest that all three premises are open to serious dispute. But the advocacy groups find themselves trapped, because once you’ve created your student constituency, you’ve got to keep feeding them hope – even if you know it to be false hope.
Can’t say anything new here, I do agree with the criticism and you phrased it very well, I was curious as to how IC managed to attract all those supporters. And lets face it, most of those kids are shallow, self-absorbed brats, with cash.
Apart from the cringe-worthy movies they add a more personal touch with their bracelet movies. If any of you know of them. It’s a bracelet with a DVD of a particular aspect which gives faces that you can become attatched to, making you want to donate your money.
I noticed many NGOs won’t do this, stating things like ‘there’s more than one child who needs help’ etc. Boring as hell if you’re a kid who wants to connect with another kid. It’s hero worship, like being a fan of a star, you want to know what’s happening to them all the time.
Like Sunday (the black bracelet) who is cute as hell imo and I was worried about him so I donated money to IC because it would help him and other kids my age. And I was even sent a reply email when I asked what had happened to him after the DVD was made. I bet there were hundreds and hundreds of other kids out there who held an affinity with one Bracelet Child or another and gave plenty of money.
Now a few years later I see IC has some serious faults but either way they’ve got flair, even if it makes people cringe, but it gets attention and kids have a lot more money than adults realise. Yes even though we’re always asking are parents for cash, even us kids who are ‘poor and on handouts at gang schools’ (me) have spare cash.
Want more money for your NGOs? As a kid this is what I want to see:
Other children, no not those ones with flies who are under 10yrs. We’ve seen that already. Show us teens! Ones with likes and dislikes that we can get to know and like or hate.
Remember our attention spans are around 0.5 of a second so make it catchy.
NO boring details, we don’t care. Keep it snappy.
Remember to put cool music, real music that we know and like.
We will go without lunch to give you money.
IC sticks in your head, however much it makes adults cringe. I thought almost everything teens do will make adults cringe….whatever else they are, thay have our attention.
The attention of the biggest consumer group around, no small feat, maybe Save The Children could get some child and teen mascots that we can relate to too.
And yes, those shirts are hideous.
Again, yes, you can actually be more truthful than IC about the realities of what is possible with aid work AND still get our money, just be creative.
THANK YOU. I have lived in northern Uganda and am appalled by these shirts. I have been in touch with IC representatives all week via phone. It has sadly proved as fruitless as when I spoke to my Congressmen about northern Uganda last February.
Thank you for your intelligence.
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
IC has become the "cause," and it is so refreshing to see so many people who understand this.
Everyone should check this out: http://www.facebook.com/wall.php?id=677672467&banter_id=9431412#/event.php?eid=53902199869
And here is IC's very professional response: http://behindthescenes.invisiblechildren.com/post/83608340/nothing-spells-revolution-like-censorship
Again, thank you!
I can understand what’s being said here, especially the “I’m going to save Africa†attitude. This is obviously the wrong approach to take, but looking back at the history of IC, I don’t think this was ever their intention. I’m very familiar with the organization and I’ve worked closely with them. In fact I’d say I’m an avid supporter. I’ve seen all the videos including the rescue. If you look at the rough cut the point was to let people know what was going on. The children, and even adults, that the guys came in contact with begged and pleaded with them. They asked the guys to remember them, and to tell their story. That’s what the organization’s goal was, simply to tell people, not to save Africa. As the story spread and the organization gained support, it also gained a voice. These three guys, along with the youth of America have been able to give a face and a name to those who have been forgotten. I think that was the heart of the guys starting out (but I shouldn’t really be speaking for them) and I think that’s what they’re trying to continue. Not everyone knows about what’s going on and I think it’s still our job to tell the story of the oppressed whether in Uganda or elsewhere. It is my belief that if I know something terrible is happening, and I do nothing to help, than I am the root of the problem, I am just as bad as the oppressor. I feel that by partnering with IC my voice will be heard and I may be able to bring light on the subject. Nothing that I do will save anyone, but it may bring about action and I believe that positive action is positive power.
My question since stumbling across the new “marketing” tool (t-shirts with “I Heart the LRA” for IC’s “The Rescue” tour as been the following:
Would you wear this in Uganda around people are now displaced in their own land because they had to flee from the LRA; whose parents were macheted to death by the LRA; who hold babies who are products of rape by the LRA; who are child soldiers aducted and brainwashed by the LRA?
Would you wear this shirt in Uganda?
Since I do not know the Uganda culture, and this shirt may be offensive in Uganda, I probably would not wear it there.
Since I do know the culture in America, and I believe this shirt would most likely not cause fear nor would it be offensive, I would wear it here.
Ultimately, this is a matter of opinion, and I don’t think it is offensive. You do. I’m not scared of the shirt. You (or someone you know) is. Ok. Its not that big of a deal.
Its a very “American” thing to be offended by things and be much talk and not much action. If you are acting on your care and concern for Ugandans, then I commend you. If you aren’t, then I scold you for starting this debate at all.
“Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Do not be afraid.†-Frederick Buechner
ONE MORE THING: And finally, to the person that implied that Ugandans simply shrug disapprovingly of the film: I certainly believe that (sometimes) happens, but it is not a matter of being “offended” as much as it is not having the cultural context in mind. To give an analogy: When I lived in London, ten Americans and I saw “Napolean Dynamite” in the theatres. Most of the Londoners in the film walked out before the end; our few Londoner friends explained that they probably simply thought it was really, really, boring. The same thing applies to IC. Ugandans are not offended, nor do they hate IC for making it, its just a different cultural context and audience in mind. I think that those who shrugged do it because they don’t understand how their daily life impacts us so strongly. They certainly aren’t mad at IC, they really could just take it or leave it.
The film was made with an American audience in mind. They do not purposefully show the film to Ugandans, and when they do, it is those that they trust they can explain the cultural differences to. We scream and laugh at chicken’s heads getting cut off; Ugandas treat it like an American child would to his mother boiling an egg: it is nothing to them. Just momma cookin’ some dinner.
We must understand that cultures are different and that there is an young, American audience in mind, both with the T-shirts and the movie.
One question: do you really know someone who is scared by the shirt? There are other social clues (facial muscles, past relationship with the person, general demeanor) to tip someone off to fear. If one of my students (I am a high school teacher) came into class wearing that shirt, I seriously doubt any of the other students would be scared. Most likely, based on Invisible Children’s audience, it would be a very “non-scary” person. Just one example of the type of person it could be is like this one: a girl who is 17 years old, 5′5, 123 lbs, long straight brown hair, pretty face, on the varsity soccer team, B+ student, extremely nice to everyone, volunteers with Invisible Children, cares about Africa and the homeless. I doubt that any of my other students is scared of her. If that student of mine goes to Uganda, I assure you she has the sense not to take that shirt with her.
IC, I always have, and always will, love what you are actively doing and the lives you are impacting, both here in America and in Uganda, in positive ways.
Oh, and I love the brilliant response on the behind the scenes page… Was it Professional? No. Did IC ever claim to wear ties and write bullshit corporate, generic, bland, Robotic-sounding responses? of course not. So they will not respond in that “professional” context even though their work is one of the most professional and respected in Uganda.
Word Girl
Matt C., that would be Ms., not Mr., thanks for making your priors known.
Are you aware that Habitat works in the U.S. of A., as well? And that, in fact, building in the U.S. rather than abroad is what campus chapters focus on?
And that it does more than build houses, as I alluded to?
Or are you talking of things you know nothing about?
Although, if you had read my post, you’d know that I’m actually not a fan of Habitat as an organization. My argument was against blindly criticizing people who choose to fundraise by staying outside for a night.
I think people need to quit complaining and bashing (Oops I meant to say dialoguing) about people trying to help and create a better world for everybody. For those of you who are against what IC is doing, I have one question for you. What are you doing to make a difference in this world, for someone other than yourself?
Tisk tisk tisk, Cory. We’eve been over this time and time again.
i’d only learned of “therescue” via twitter, and though it seemed like a worthy cause, something about the campaign and the organization rubbed me the wrong way and i couldn’t quite put my finger on it. thanks for this post, as it helped clarify it for me.
Excellent response. As mentioned on ‘Wronging Rights’Blog – I had similar thoughts (and made a serious compliant to CIDA) about a Canadian NGO back in 1996. The overall aim of IC may be ‘worthy’ (if that is even always/ever a good thing?) but that does not mean it is, or should Be, immune to criticism.
Chris – the shirts are, definitely, hideous. But, as for the other criticism of IC… I think you need to do some actual research or make some substantial claims. Clearly, there is more to a book than its cover. IC might have questionable marketing in the States, buts its programming in Uganda is much, much different. IC would be the first to admit that they made a lot of mistakes, especially as they got started. But, the organization has changed dramatically and really is involved with many projects similar to that of the organization you were traveling with AVSI.