14 January 2011
Is This (Animal) Poverty Porn?
The equivalent video for an NGO would be decried as 'poverty porn' by people (and likely myself). So, if I hold an organization, such as Smile Train, to a higher standard with the argument that it is exploitative of children and sends the wrong message, should it apply here?
One could argue a separate set of ethical standards for animals verses people. The core of the campaign is to depict helpless beings to garner sympathy. If there is an understood separation of the two, then the use of such campaigns clearly are ethically dubious. However, if seeing the use of sympathy in a 'ends justify the means' way, then both do not present problems since people will feel bad and offer support through adoption, volunteering or donating.
So what do you think? Where do you come down on this overdone issue? Also, what about the use of the term 'poverty porn?' Thinking about it more, outside of the fact that it has driven me traffic from people looking from porn, what might be the implications of such a phrase? Would it be better to use something more accurate like "guilt driven marketing?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
All Time Hits
-
I am now also including media coverage and blog posts about the exchange at the bottom; please tweet me or comment as more cover the story. ...
-
Update 1: A post on the discussion/debate on Humanosphere provides a nice summary. World Vision (WV) announced that for the 15th year t...
-
The following post is a collaborative effort by Carol Gallo , David Week , and myself. It came from a conversation, which Carol am retells ...
-
I am going to toss things that I find interesting up here regarding the election in Kenya. It is by no means comprehensive, so do make su...
-
Today's map from the Economist lists how long, on average, leaders have stayed in power for each country in the world.
-
Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson finally responded to Jeff Sach's review of their book Why Nations Fail. It in turn led to a spirited...
-
Update: This has quickly become my most popular post as a feed in from MetaFilter . It has lead to some really strong reactions. Unfortunat...
-
Cracked.com has a post titled 6 Socially Conscious Actions That Only Look Like They Help . One of the listed actions is "volunteering ...
9 comments:
Good thing to think... But I tend to agree that we should have separate standards for animals and humans beings... Just the formers have "agency", as the capacity of knowing and acting, and also being capable of empowerment (whith or without external help)...
I talked about it a little bit here:
http://aidthoughts.org/?p=1842
They certainly use the same techniques, but I'd be in favor of restricting the term `poverty porn' to humans. As Pablo says, there are issues with animal agency (many of these are abandoned, abused animals - and frankly there isn't much scope for improvements in dog and cat development which doesn't come directly at the whim of humans).
Plus they are just *so* cute. Who's a good boy? Who's a goood boy?
http://www.fupenguin.com/
You can draw very similar conclusions on the difference between useful conservation and fluffy animal-based promotions. There are even technical terms for such work: the animals being advertised are termed either flagship or umbrella species.
But most tropical conservation projects spend more time working with people than with animals. Except that then there are the crazy expensive relocate-some-rhinos type projects which only get off the ground because there are enough suckers out there prepared to fund them.
This kind of animal porn, tho, is focused upon issues closer to home, and, in that sense, is more akin to promotions asking you to donate to your local school. As with the poverty version, I'm not sure that complaining about it is ever going to make much difference.
They are certainly going for shock value. But I think a big part of poverty porn is that the image is often taken without consent or used in a way the participant did not agree too, and sometimes even used completely out of context. A human being has the ability to give consent and should have the right to choose how their image is presented.
I don't think you can really equate the two for the reasons given by previous commenters about agency and consent. Maybe the better question would be, how can some humanitarian/development NGOs get away with representing the people they are supposed to be helping as if they were abandoned animals? (yes I'm going for shock value)
Great comments, all. Thanks for your thoughts on this. I think there is definitely a difference, but it made me think a bit more after seeing the same tactic used for animals.
Ian introduces a great question, "how can some humanitarian/development NGOs get away with representing the people they are supposed to be helping as if they were abandoned animals?"
Any thoughts?
Ian`s questions is really provocative... I assume we (bloggers and commenters of this kind of stuff) are against "poverty porn", and I think we have some good points in order to be against it. But Ian´s question goes beyond us, and it has to do with (our) funders, (our) bosses, (our) public opinion... And although we are rarely involved in "making poverty porn", I am beginning to think that we are not strong enough in condemn it.
Ian`s questions is really provocative... I assume we (bloggers and commenters of this kind of stuff) are against "poverty porn", and I think we have some good points in order to be against it. But Ian´s question goes beyond us, and it has to do with (our) funders, (our) bosses, (our) public opinion... And although we are rarely involved in "making poverty porn", I am beginning to think that we are not strong enough in condemn it.
I talked about it a little bit here:
http://aidthoughts.org/?p=1842
They certainly use the same techniques, but I'd be in favor of restricting the term `poverty porn' to humans. As Pablo says, there are issues with animal agency (many of these are abandoned, abused animals - and frankly there isn't much scope for improvements in dog and cat development which doesn't come directly at the whim of humans).
Plus they are just *so* cute. Who's a good boy? Who's a goood boy?
http://www.fupenguin.com/
Post a Comment