I was flipping through the fall GQ today, and I came across this bald image of Sting sporting orange (apparently tribal) paint smeared across his face with the title "I AM AFRICAN" below it. This, I discovered is an advertisement for an AIDS campaign called 'keep a child alive'. The caption is followed by the text "help us stop the dying. Pay for lifesaving aids drugs that can keep a child, a mother, a father, a family alive. visit keepachildalive.org to help." It all sounds well and good. And then, a friend pointed me to two other sets of images, this one, with Gwenyth Paltrow, followed by this image, which you can view by clicking this View this photo . View the image below first...
What are these images about? On the surface, they're a campaign to raise public attention about an issue - AIDS in Africa - which is already in the public subconscious, especially after the Live Aid concerts initiated to pressure the G8 leaders to adopt measures to help the global fight against poverty, AIDs, and developing world debt.
The use of celebrity images in advertising campaigns designed to stimulate public attention and awareness around social justice issues is nothing new. The celebrities who take part in these campaigns receive praise for engaging in an issue that is certainly deserving of increased public and political attention. But is it effective? What is communicated with these campaigns?
These images remind me of the controversy surrounding famed advertising photographer Oliveri Toscani, and the Benneton campaigns of the 1990s, in which he used visceral, intimate images of war casualties, dying AIDS patients, racial archetypes and other images in glossy fashion advertisements sporting the Benneton logo. Toscani claimed he was using the modern day language of advertising to communicate a message of social justice, and that doing so in a fashion magazine, and in the medium of advertising, was merely a means to an end.
Critics decried the fact that the overwhelming context of consumerism and the logo accompanying the imagery used, meant that what was communicated was less a message of political action, but a subversion of the meaning of what it means to live with AIDs, or of contemporary identity politics. What resulted was to subject images which have a certain meaning, especially those which depict images of death and suffering, to a context in which images are examined, digested and 'consumed' in a matter of seconds. How are magazine advertisements any kind of appropriate arena within which to place serious political or social justice statements? What does it mean to place a corporate logo on an image of someone dying of AIDS? Is their suffering a commodity?
With this most recent image campaign, there is of course, some kind of effort to raise attention about AIDS suffering in Africa. Of course, this is laudable as an intention, and to the extent that the celebrities involved are motivated on behalf of this intention - its all tremendously commendable. But I can't help and think about the stereotypes that are used and propogated by this kind of image. First, there is the assertion that "AFRICA" implies "AIDS". Of course, AIDS is a huge catastrophe, and the continent of Africa is home to many countries like Zimbabwe, which are virtually crippled by this single disease. Entire generations of children are growing up with no parents, since they have all died because of AIDS. And, of course, there are constraints on how any kind of social justice message can be crafted without being problematic in some kind of way. All of that being recognized, this image nonetheless perpetuates a notion that "all of Africa" suffers from AIDS, and that it is Africa, uniquely, which is afflicted by this disease. Why is this? AIDS is as much of a disaster in Asia, particularly rural China, as it is in many parts of Africa. Why stop at the association of Africa with AIDS? Why not have a picture of Gwenyth Paltrow with an AK-47 and a caption identifying her with the fight to reduce access to small-arms - a problem which also plagues Africa, atlthough not uniquely.
It is noble to participate in any social justice cause, but it is ignoble to participate in a campaign which insensitively perpetuates stereotypical ways of thinking about AIDS, or Africa. What does it mean to have wealthy non-African celebrities proclaiming themselves "African" as a way to motivate western advertising consumers to give money to African AIDS charities? Why not make it purely about AIDS, rather than situate the AIDS struggle as having anything to do specifically with race or geography. Granted, AIDS is especially a problem in Africa due to cultural practices around sex and condom use, Catholic church policies surrounding birth-control, a lack of governmental policies and other assorted issues. That said, there are ways to participate in an AIDs campaign supporting projects in Africa without engendering the kind of backlash seen in the response to the Gwyneth image.
There is also the issue of western charity and African economic and social problems. Celebrity charity efforts have rarely succeeded in galvanizing support for policy changes which can result in long term effects. It is easy to get on-board with a project which involves the public parting with money, sending it to an NGO in Africa, which then attempts to distribute AIDS drugs to the public. There is little political opposition for this kind of intervention, and it is easy to see why these efforts are popular with celebrities. Less popular, but more promising in terms of delivering long-term solutions to AIDS and other public policy issues, are lobbying efforts directed at Western policies which perpetuate conditions of poverty and disease in Africa.
If OECD countries were to stop unfairly subsidizing domestic grain, cotton and other industries which compete unfairly with smaller African producers, African countries could experience much-greater economic growth from international trade, and thereby relieve some of the financial pressures preventing African governments from addressing their own public policy issues. Made in Africa solutions are superior to Western interventions in many ways, not least owing to the efficiency of localized efforts and expenditures as compared to a lattice of poorly coordinated international NGOs all lobbying independently of one-another for slices of western public and governmental attention. These efforts are invaluable and needed in the absence of favourable conditions in African countries with disastrous political and economic infrastructure (Zimbabwe for example) - but they are a temporary solution. Unlike some, I don't advocate a "do nothing approach" for fear that any kind of charity removes incentives for African countries to solve their own problems.
Ultimately, if the cause is alleviating poverty or AIDs, it is often helpful to combat stereotypes that these aren't problems in the west. The US alone has 30,000,000 citizens living in abject poverty. Canada has a significant population of those living below the poverty line as well. AIDs continues to be an issue not just in Africa, but among many demographics in North America. Cultural prejudices surrounding AIDs and condom use continue to result in propogation of the virus in the US and Canada. It would be nice to see a campaign recognizing these problems as well as those unique to Africa, so the stereotype that AIDs or poverty are somehow Africa-specific can be thrown out.
Moreover, it is possible to argue that social issues advertising has a place in a magazine devoted to consumerism - but it requires finesse and a careful navigation of cultural identity. It is difficult to see how this latest campaign by 'keep a child alive' satisfies any of these requirements. If anything, the campaign perpetuates a dark continent of Zulu-like tribes with war paint, tribal necklaces and Bedouin shawls. In contrast, many contemporary African cities are essentially western, with office buildings, western cars and garb, and McDonalds outlets. In South Africa, which is a bit of an exception among African countries in terms of its economic development, this campaign would likely invoke a mono-culture which doesn't exist for South Africans and has little contemporary relevance. "Africa" and its problems can be summed up as accurately with stereotypical tribal-wear as "North America" can be summed up with cowboy hats and SUVs.
Recent Comments