I’m reading this book right now called Re-Imagining Rwanda, by Johan Pottier, that attempts to deconstruct the stories and images that have come out of news and humanitarian agencies about Rwanda, Uganda, and the Congo. Something that really struck me the other day when I was reading it, was this point:
“disaster photography forms a specific type of Orientalist discourse in which suffering is universalized to suit the needs of both news and humanitarian agencies. The photographer’s input mostly goes undetected. Instantly readable, visually and conceptually, disaster images appeal to a vast humanitarian ‘industry’ and public who believe they tell a full and objective story.”
This quote is crucial for several reasons.
Literature and photographs create very specific images and understandings of the people they portray, and often, they are used to create those images and understandings for specific purposes. News and humanitarian agencies need to attract audiences. With humanitarian agencies in particular, there is a danger of people assuming that because these agencies are created to “help” people, that everything they say is fact, when actually, they are under similar constraints as news agencies to attract audiences, fundraise, and receive support by key people in power. So just as we must be critical of news agencies and their particular spin, we must use a critical eye with humanitarian agencies. They, just as the news, can oversimplify conflicts, as well as dehumanize in the way that they talk about and show conflicts and problems. Here is a good example: the campaign to end the genocide in Darfur. On the surface, all the organizations involved in this campaign (Save Darfur, STAND, to name a few) all seem to be attempting to do good by raising awareness about the conflict in Darfur and giving people practical ways to get involved. This is all great, but these organizations have also been guilty (especially in the early days of the campaign) of oversimplifying the history around the conflict, as well as vilifying the Arab population of Sudan. Several critiques about this have been made, a great one in particular by Mahmood Mamdani. These orgs (as well as many other involved in other causes) have also used images of starving children, burn victims, and so on, to shock people into getting involved. This may work on a surface level to get people involved, but it also creates an image of the “helpless” African, and that is dehumanizing.
The other point that the above quote brings up, is that humanitarian acts, in a way, have become an “industry” in the western world, infused with consumerism philosophy. To get people involved, especially the younger generations, humanitarian agencies sell t-shirts, bracelets, bumper stickers, etc. They have their brand to sell—”Save Darfur Now,” “Never Again” (referring to the Rwanda Genocide). Becoming an activist has become almost a fad. Many people purchase these products to look like they are involved, many without actually really understanding the cause they are supporting. They attend screenings, fundraisers, concerts, but the involvement doesn’t go beyond that. They think, “if I buy the t-shirt, or I sign a support letter, or I attend the fundraiser, I’ve done my part.” I’m not saying these are bad things to do, I do many of them myself, but what I am saying is that they are not enough. We need to look at our lives and make a conscious effort to make significant changes in the way we live, and encourage others to do the same. We need to do our homework. It takes time and research to understand the injustices in our world. We need to dialogue with each other to create interest and understanding.
We are called by God to love and care for each other. We shouldn’t have to be lured into a cause by a cool t-shirt or our favorite band. Yes these are great ways to get the word out, but they only scratch the surface of what it will take to create lasting social change.