Fung and Shkabatur’s paper does a pretty thorough analysis
of the unique place viral campaigns hold in our modern world. They argue that
while it does have it’s shortcomings viral campaigns result in a net good for
civic understanding, however I think they do overlook one important aspect
which is the main concern of Fassin’s paper: the huge work that a rhetoric of
compassion does in the modern politic – and thus the power that perceived suffering
holds. He notes “imitation is replaced by exclusion, domination is transformed
into misfortune, injustice is articulated as suffering, and violence is
expressed in terms of trauma” (Fassin, 6). This framework reflects a soft kind
of compassion that may make the subject feel good; it can actually work to conceal
the true causes of suffering. For example, while the Kony 2012 video used the
word of the young Jacob to crystallize the face of evil, it obfuscated the
systemic reinforcement for Kony’s actions – simply calling him the “bad guy”. Yes
the threat he actually imposes, and the power he wields where hyperbolized, but
this is not even the most caustic part of this campaign. What many viewers (and
avid supporters) of this video likely do not know is the great lakes region of
Africa where Joseph Kony was active has one the highest known concentrations of
the world’s Coltan supply, a crucial element in the construction of smart
phones and cellular computers. The ravenous desire for this element and the
lack of regulation of it’s extraction (there is child slavery used to subsidize
these operations) may be the true causes for the endemic problems in this region.
The other issue I take with this kind of rhetoric is that
the when suffering is foregrounded, it necessarily removes the focus on the
idyllic ‘pursuit of happiness’ and replaces it with a flight from sadness. Perhaps
this is the reason that some “derided or waxed indignant about what
theyinterpreted as a drift towards sentimentalism, suggesting that we all
consider ourselves as victims” (Fassin, 7). Is it the contemporary luxuries that
we are born into. In the 1940 movie The
Great Dictator Charlie Chaplin laments “We have developed speed, but we
have shut ourselves in, machinery that gives abundance has left us in want. Our
knowledge has made us cynical, our cleverness hard and unkind. We think too
much and feel too little.” in a word, if technology, education, and material
wealth guaranteed happiness the western world should be overjoyed. Often these
things lend themselves very well to soft compassion, which can generalize
happiness into a lack of sadness. Fung
and Shkabatur argue that since the great equalizing power of the internet can
allow any ‘ask’ to be potentially viral it can at worst raise some degree of
awareness. However, since the rhetoric of suffering has already been
established the ‘asks’ which are successful must be articulated in this fashion. I ask the question is perceived suffering
endemic because there is a lack of genuine joy? Imagine a viral campaign built
around spreading joy – of course the problem here is that no government
regulation will universally bring happiness,
this mostly stems from sincere interactions, and this quickly moves away
from another criteria of the viral campaign: low investment.
Perhaps, the issues I take with slacktivism and viral
campaigns are not as a disease; indeed, it
is extremely valuable to have the power to speak to a mass audience about
things which are deeply concerning, and although they are low investment these
campaigns can have a huge effect in that they do show the actual spread of
public concern. Maybe, these campaigns trouble me as a symptom. Perhaps we are
too globalized, too networked to have complete ethical agency in any of our
actions.
But maybe I’m just projecting, I mean, what good did I do by
writing this blog post?
No comments:
Post a Comment