I'd like to elaborate on two points that wove in and out of our conversation during the week 12 live session. First, the inclusive nature of the internet and second, what makes an NGO effective. I believe these two topics are connected in very interesting ways.
First, I was greatly disturbed in class by our ability to discuss the the influence of the internet on international relations and how it supports a more globalized world. Many of us pointed out that we can all be connected via the internet and very intimately connected using social media, skype, and e-messaging systems. I cannot deny that such an interconnectedness, ease of communication and idea sharing brings us an abundance of opportunities and I am wholeheartedly supportive of free education for all people. However, it was disturbing that we praised these new opportunities without acknowledging the danger and falsehoods that comes with them. As spider-man teaches us, with great power comes great responsibility, and I believe that our conversations around the internet should focus more on how to effectively use it rather that the great abilities it presents us. What are the ethics of using the internet and how can we use it both responsibly and effectively to benefit the entire world? For example, social media enabled masses of Egyptians to unite and gather effectively enough to topple their government during the Arab Spring of 2011. Similar means were used to galvanize the diverse and tolerant young democratic American citizens to get out and vote for the US's first black president in 2008 and then again for the most inexperienced president in the history of the US in 2016. In addition, ISIS was able to spread its message to recruit young to it's radical islamic sect via youtube videos across the world despite their lack of funds and small original population. While the benefits of the internet is abundantly clear, widely accepted as commonplace and deeply integrated into our plans for the future, it is not clear how to interact with such a delicate inclusive nature knowing that it can be used for bad just as easily as good.
Second, the last question that was posed to class was very interesting to me and really touched upon a lot of the controversial issues we've discussed over the semester. The professor asked, how are NGOs effective? Such a question dives deeply into our previous conversation on legitimacy, authority and sovereignty. My immediate thought was very practical: if the NGO isn't operating in the red and there is a demand for its product, it is successful. I stand by this answer and think what the professor truly wanted to ask the class was, how can we judge an NGO's mission? This type of question begs a response regarding the benefits and criticisms of an NGO's mission, not just its business plan. Invisible Children Inc., is a great example to discuss in this light. Invisible Children Inc., produced a documentary called Kony 2012 that galvanized an appetite for bipartisan collaboration, desire to save the world and surf a wave of celebrity diplomacy. The film earned millions of dollars of revenue, so much online support that platforms couldn't handle the interest, and convinced both the US and AU to send troops to confront the films evil protagonist, Joseph Kony. By many measures of success, these results embody a successful NGO. However, in later years as the story developed and spread across the globe, inconsistencies arose in the facts, inspirations for more violence were found and Joseph Kony achieved a celebrity status. Most notably, all the efforts put forth to vilify and educate the world on the atrocities committed by Kony did not lead to his capture. Is this the result of an effective NGO?
As we continue to think about NGO effectiveness this week, the public sphere, celebrities and the internet, I think it is crucial to discuss these more controversial points on how all these elements interact like the examples I've raised in this blog rather than reiterate their banal characteristics.
Katherine,
ReplyDeleteThe question about the effectiveness of NGOs was very interesting for me, too, and I wish we had a little more time to discuss this subject. My immediate thought was very practical, too: if they are able to raise awareness and money so that they can pursue their goals, then they are effective.
The question of how we can judge their missions is a lot more difficult to answer, however. You brought up a very good example with Invisible Children. The NGO was very effective in raising awareness, getting governments involved and raising money, but what went wrong?
Christine - what went wrong is a great question! Since this incredibly "successful and effective" organization still exists today but Kony is still a threat, it is a very strange thing. There are debates about what went wrong but after reading this module's articles I think that lure of celebrity status was too much and lead the organization away from a factual portrayal of the situation. For example, there were numerous controversies over which country Kony and his army were actually stationed in which caused a lot of strife for the countries in question despite their denial of any involvement for years. In addition, the film was met by a lot of contempt from regional victim of Kony's army because they didn't think it represented the suffering caused by his forces and instead lifted him up as a movie star, i.e. the movie was effective at making his name recognized in household around the world.
ReplyDeleteKatherine, I agree that the question of effectiveness with NGOs is definitely something that is worth discussing. Having worked for several NGOs, I think it's difficult to determine if something is effective when there are so many pressures to make it work/be successful/meet the goals. The reality is that so much is on the line, specifically with finances as grants and contracts at stake, that I many results are encouraged to always be positive (or not be in the red). So it may be tempting to highlight successes without being transparent regarding failures that have happened. Like with aid, an example could be that 500 people received food donations that will last them for a month, but without perspective it's hard to know if that was "good" or not. Obviously, it's hard to make it black/white as there is a lot of operating in the gray with NGOs, but I think there is often a pressure to only report and share the good. I hope we get to discuss this more in class as it would be interesting to hear everyone's opinions.
ReplyDelete