If you’ve ever been annoyed with the throngs of invitations by Facebook friends to add applications or to join groups, you probably know that there is a loyal resistance against those superfluous invites and that you are not alone. I myself feel only annoyance with most of the invitations, yet there are some that I feel are extremely vain and problematic. I’m not talking about the ones that show how fast you can type, or the ones that allow you to share favorite ethnic foods, or the ones that allow you to arbitrarily put a price tag on your friends and buy them with electronic money. Being vain without shame is not a problem, because those applications work just as they intend to, and there is nothing that I need to say about them. The ones that I find are the most vain and problematic are the invitations to worthwhile causes.
A couple of months ago I had lunch with an old college friend, who is quite the outspoken environmentalist. So much so that he is in the middle of finishing a book being published by InterVarsity Press and scheduled to be released in January of next year. I asked him what he felt about the growing trends in consumerism to ‘go green’. He responded by saying that while it is good that the word is getting out to consumers about the need to preserve the environment, it ultimately does not help the causes of environmentalists in the long run because it is not a sustainable commodity in a capitalist system.
And that is what this blog is about. A clash of ideologies. Humanitarianism is not a sustainable commodity in a system where the bottom line is money. And just so it is clear: it’s nothing personal. There is nothing wrong with environmentalism. As a matter of fact, it is an entirely good thing to preserve the environment and create conscious consumers. But in a matter of time, this particular trend will disappear with its utility. It is just the way that capitalism works and we accept it. Yet capitalism works in our society almost entirely for the ego.
Consider the throngs of Facebook groups and applications that were created in the past couple of years. They were dedicated to helping the poor and suffering in countries overseas, in places like North Korea and Sudan. Dedicated to preserving the environment, saving rain forests and gas. They were groups that took donations from college students with little disposable income after a college education.
There were other groups that became spoofs of these humanitarian groups, along the lines of “If 5000 people Join this group I will legally change my name to Optimus“, and “If 1000 People Join this Group I Will Have a Sex Change Operation“. That, by the way, is how you can tell that something has become a movement in our society: there are homages paid to it. This movement has apparent made it hip to be a humanitarian.
I myself joined a group that donated money to North Korean Refugees. There were a number of donors who pledged to donate money according to the number of people that joined the group. It was, for all intents and purposes, to get the word out about the humanitarian crisis in North Korea, to inform as well as raise up an albeit small amount of money to make a small difference.
I have since left the Facebook group, but check back every now and then since the donation period ended. There appears to be no news with regards to whether the donation was even made or not by the donors. None on the official Facebook group, nor the website that sponsored it. I had even e-mailed the contacts of the group regarding donations, and they have yet to respond back to me.
This is not necessarily the fault of the organization. I know the organization and have worked with it before, and believe it to be one of sincerity and integrity. I do not intend to write this blog at the expense of Facebook, either. The issue is that there is no accountability with a networking tool that is intended for personal use. A tool that is for the ego cannot effectively communicate humanitarianism or environmentalism, because those are inherently messages that are selfless. To try to do so is vain and problematic.
I can anticipate a response by the optimists, who may say something along the lines of: “Well, I’m not entirely too sold on the idea of bringing in words like capitalism, ego, and contrasting them to humanitarian and environmental. Regardless of whether there is any merit in your argument or not, wouldn’t you concede that there is perhaps some good that is being done by such organizations and the attempts to reach people through Facebook? Even if only a handful of people donated money or became enthusiasts, wouldn’t it be worth the effort?” To which I would respond yes, perhaps there is some good being done through making humanitarianism hip. And the thing that I love about being a naysayer sometimes is that I can point out a problem and hope sincerely that I am wrong. This is one of those instances.
In addition to a lack of accountability that comes from using a personal networking tool, being what I like to call a “Hip Humanitarian” comes with its own set of problems. For one thing, being hip, by virtue of its nature, is a fickle thing. Who can remember Pogs, those seashell necklaces worn by the suburban high schoolers, and the fact that most people used to find Jim Carrey hilarious? For another, being hip is the outgrowth of a socially constructed set of parameters in order to be accepted, on the most basic level. Surely social justice and environmental needs deserve more than a passing fancy for the sake of wearing the proud badge that says “I support this worthwhile cause” (I do not mean to demean those who are hip or want to be hip. It is a natural tendency that we as people in society have. Even those who purport to ‘go against the grain’ are trying to find a niche in our social context). Because being hip is tied together with a social goal, being a humanitarian does not mesh well with it. It is a conflict of interests.
Finally, I want to say one last thing in response to the optimists who believe in the small differences idea: I wholly agree with the attitude with which these measures are taken. However, when it really comes down to it, appealing to social networking tools devoted to the self is not a very efficient way of going about spurring young, vibrant, resourceful individuals to give time and effort to worthwhile causes. After all, feeding a child with just a click is truly the least that we can do.
the thing about hip movements is that it starts with a group of people genuinely interested in whatever it is and it spreads out from there. For example, remember our little break-dancing phase? We got into it because we thought it was hip, but there are some people who, like us, try it out because it’s just the hip thing to do, but then they realize that they actually genuinely enjoy breakdancing and they continue with it for as long as they are able. The people who continue break-dancing may never have discovered their passion if they never tried it, right? while people like us, since we did end up doing it just because it was cool at the time, moved on.
i agree with many of your points about how promoting selfless actions through ego-fueling means is counter-intuitive, but what better way is there to reach people, otherwise uninterested, and en-mass, than tools like facebook? Sure, most of the people that join humanitarian groups will do so because it’s the hip thing to do and will probably move on after some time. But I’m sure there are people out there who will realize the humanitarian within them, despite being introduced to it in the “wrong” way.
if i remember correctly, you should be back in school by now? drop me an e-mail or something and let me know how you’re doing!
i must agree. majority of those facebook groups really have no proof of any humanitarian work. Nor heard of these organizations that are funding these groups.
sadly it just seems more of a hoax then anything. it seems like a contest of how many people can join and a ‘popular’ contest.