Kony 2012 campaign makes us feel good - and that's bad
I'm quoting the last half of the article, please click link above to read the whole article. I think he's made a very good point. What do you think?
Toronto Star - Raywat Deonandan wrote:When training volunteers to go abroad, I employ the terminology of Kelly Anderson and Azad Mashari, who suggest that “do-gooders” tend to fall between the extremes of “ethical paralysis” and “righteous seizure.” The former is the state of exasperated powerlessness in which a worker often finds himself after realizing that all development problems are so complex that almost any action will result in harm to the vulnerable populations he wishes to help. But the latter, “righteous seizure,” is the easy, default state of pretty much every under-informed but caring person who sees injustice and wishes to right it. “Righteous seizure” is characterized by a desire to do anything to address a perceived crisis, regardless of whether such action is effective or has unconsidered downstream ill effects. In my opinion, it is best exemplified by a 2005 quote from Sir Bob Geldof regarding the African famine: “Something must be done; anything must be done, whether it works or not.”
The problem is that when “anything” is done, it usually ends up doing more harm than good. In the case of food relief, for example, the effect is often the destruction of the domestic food production market or the empowerment of local warlords who use food as political leverage. The answer, then, is not to do “anything,” but to take the time to consider all the possible implications of one’s intended intervention. The track record of ill-conceived international interventions is so poor that philosopher Ivan Illich once implored good-intentioned do-gooders to come “climb our mountains, enjoy our flowers . . . but do not come to help.”
It is my position that those wishing to pursue international health and development interventions try to push themselves philosophically toward the “ethical paralysis” pole, without achieving the impotence and complete inaction that the term might imply. Even something as seemingly innocuous as an awareness campaign can be ethically problematic, especially when it unleashes as much outrage and energy as “Kony 2012.” The levels of incited action that the campaign has seen truly is inspiring. That some voices have called for a deeper consideration of its ethical dimensions is encouraging. But seeing those latter voices shouted down — on Twitter, YouTube comments and in other online fora — as apologists and moral relativists is, nevertheless, deeply disappointing.
I see the “Kony 2012” phenomenon as a ripe moment for public education about the ethics of international health and development. It may not result in the alleviation of the suffering associated with the LRA, but it may inspire a new generation to consider the nuances and complexities of global politics and the roles of each of us in both the sustenance and potential abrogation of suffering.
Raywat Deonandan is a global health specialist in the Interdisciplinary School of Health Sciences at the University of Ottawa.
