Steve Lynch, in a personal
capacity, argues that however honourable the motives, it is not a charity’s job
to rebrand Africa.
Oxfam’s latest multimedia,
multiplatform campaign, See Africa Differently, doesn’t have any people in it.
There are beautifully shot
images of waterfalls, thriving markets, landscapes and mountains, but no actual
people. Have Oxfam gone into the tourism promotion business, or are they trying
to make another point? Well, as Nick Futcher
of Oxfam and the ads themselves tell
us, Oxfam want us to make Africa ‘famous
for its epic landscapes, not hunger’. Another ad in the series moans that
Africa is only ever in the news because of famine and war, rather than because ‘of its abundant natural beauty’.
aside the fact that nowhere is ever in the news because of ‘its abundant natural beauty’, where does
the motivation for this approach come from? Will a charity ‘rebrand’ of Africa
bear fruit in terms of either shifting public perceptions or increasing
fundraising income and, critically, is it really within the scope or remit of
charities to redefine the relationship between the West and Africa?
it’s important to say that the desire to see Africa differently probably comes
from a good place. Traditionally, so the argument goes, we portray Africans as
passive victims, using ‘fly-baby’ images to perpetuate the idea that Africans
are incapable of helping themselves and stuck in an intractable cycle of
poverty and hunger. Advocates for change argue this approach, often labeled
‘poverty pornography’, is rooted in colonialism and doesn’t allow room for us
to show the richness and diversity of Africa and Africans – and can actually
rob people of their humanity, suggesting their problems can only be addressed
by the benevolence of western, white, donors.
the umbrella organisation for UK based development NGOs, published a 2011
report which summarised the ‘problems’ of this approach thus:
The most widespread model for
public engagement has been labelled as the ‘Live Aid Legacy’, which casts the
UK public in the role of ‘dominant giver’, and Southern publics in the role of
‘grateful receiver’. In this model, the causes of poverty are internal to poor
countries, and nothing to do with global politics. All the UK public can do is
give money, and invariably they believe that some, if not most of the money
does not get through to those in need; hence Africa in particular is described
as “a bottomless pit”.
Writing in The Independent, Jonathan Tanner argues this approach ultimately has a negative impact on
“If images of starving babies produce a strong emotional
reaction, and therefore strong financial and political support, how are we
going to show that we’re making progress? People won’t keep donating if they
think nothing has changed.”
These contributions, and Oxfam’s
current campaign, are deeply flawed.
They suggest that to portray the
‘truth’ of Africa (whatever that is) we simply substitute so-called ‘negative’ portrayals for more
positive ‘good news’ images and stories. There’s a real risk this desire to
rebrand Africa, arguably, leads to representations that are more paternalistic
and patronising than the ‘traditional’ depictions it wants to replace. At the
same time the ‘rebrand’ risks undermining, perhaps fatally, fundraising income.
To address this latter issue first,
the argument as articulated by Mr Tanner and many others, is that the UK public
are simply fed up with images of poverty and have developed an emotional
immunity to pictures of malnourished and sick babies. Fundraisers commonly call
this ‘compassion fatigue’ and there’s absolutely no evidence to suggest it
The DEC’s 2011 East Africa Appeal raised more money than all but two other appeals in its 30-year
history, the 2005 Tsunami and 2010 Haiti Earthquake: and this despite
comparatively minimal media coverage. Each individual development charity will
have numerous examples of successful appeals which prove their audiences
respond generously when presented with a compelling, emotionally engaging case
The UK public has proved, time
after time after time, that when their fellow human beings are suffering, they
respond with compassion and generosity, little matter how many times they might
have responded similarly in the past. Empathy and sympathy, it seems, are not
Doesn’t this generosity also tell
us something else, something that perhaps fatally undermines the rebranders’
position? What if people give generously to emergency appeals not because of
any stereotype they may possess of what being African means, or any misplaced
sense of colonial responsibility. Couldn’t it be that they give because when
they see a portrayal of a person suffering they recognise their humanity? They
don’t see a cliché, a symbol or a representation, they see another human being
who is suffering and perhaps think ‘there but for the grace of God go I’.
Moreover, the assertion that
charities only communicate negative stories simply isn’t true. As every good
fundraiser will attest, showing people the impact of their donations and how
people are transforming their lives as a result is an essential part of the
fundraising mix and, arguably, the key to building long-term relationships with
A related issue is the rebranders
concern that negative images of famine or hunger aren’t representing the whole
truth of Africa, and instead perpetuate a Western view of Africans as passive
beneficiaries of our largesse. The short answer is that when we as fundraisers
show or discuss human suffering, we do so because that suffering actually exists.
To refuse to show or discuss this suffering, however well-meaning the
motivation, is tantamount to lying.
I’ve worked with numerous
development charities and have never been asked to select or manipulate
images or stories to imply a situation is worse than it is. As a sector, we’re
pretty good at ensuring we tell the real stories, reflecting the real needs, of
real people. Perhaps its time to stop beating ourselves up about it? How much
worse if people’s stories are spun – or in Oxfam’s case ignored altogether – merely
to ensure they reflect the current academic vogue to ‘accentuate the positive’.
But, the rebranders ask, what good
is it communicating about Africa if we’re not addressing the bigger problems?
How can we ever make real inroads against poverty in the developing world when
we’re perpetuating a donor/beneficiary paradigm? The answer might be a hard one
for some charity professionals to stomach, but it’s one I’m confident the vast
majority of donors are perfectly well aware of. The fact is however energetic
their lobbying, however widespread their campaigning, however generous their
donors, it is not within the power of the charitable sector to provide a long-term
solution to poverty in the developing world.
The world economy is loaded against
people in the developing world and while charities might help achieve a UN
resolution here, or a World Bank concession there, they’re ultimately toothless.
One could make the case that the idea the problems of the African people can be
addressed via the political efforts of the UK charitable sector (rather than
through the actions of African people themselves) is inherently patronising and
not a little arrogant.
And much as donors might have an
earnest desire for lasting, continent-wide change, I’d suggest they
instinctively understand what, ultimately, is within their means to help achieve.
Perhaps that’s why (as a rule of thumb) appeals which explain how donors can tangibly
help real individuals, achieve overwhelmingly better results than those that
present the larger, seemingly intractable problems. Tell people about 1 million
children who need nets to protect them from malaria and the solution is outside
of their reach, but tell them about one child and they can do something.
But, the rebranders often ask,
‘what about our duty to dispel the myths and show the positive side of Africa?’
I hope it’s not too controversial if I suggest that’s not the job of charities.
As many eminent commentators have
investigated with enormous rigour, how we in the West understand Africa and the
developing world is the legacy of over 200 years of Western cultural, political
and economic hegemony. In order to justify their imperial domination, our
forbears presented Africans as almost helpless, dependent on our Christian
beneficence for their very survival. While the vestiges of this worldview
undoubtedly remain stubbornly lodged in part of the population’s collective
consciousness, charities cannot and should not shoulder the blame.
Even if we accept that work needs
to be done to challenge people’s ideas about Africa, its important to bear in
mind that charity communications are likely to play only a miniscule part, if
any, in this process. We form our ideas and perceptions of Africa (as with
everything else) based on what we see in the news media, through culture, art,
films and books and increasingly from the internet. A lot of us work, live,
study and socialise with members of the diaspora and new connections to African
people and experiences are only a mouse-click away. How dare Oxfam presume that
we can’t work out for ourselves that Africa isn’t just about famine?
Bearing this in mind, perhaps the
real reason that See Africa Differently
doesn’t have any people in it, is not the British public becoming bored of
seeing the type of images the rebranders want to proscribe. Perhaps it’s the
bigwigs at Oxfam who don’t want to see them?
Perhaps images of suffering and
hardship remind the rebranders of an uncomfortable truth, that they are,
ultimately, impotent in the face of poverty on the scale it exists in
Africa. Real images of real people might be a reminder of this, so
instead we have the visual stimulus of waterfalls, landscapes and mountains and
the intellectual Viagra of a charity believing only it has the wisdom and
foresight to appreciate the facile truth that Africa isn’t just about poverty.
And the result is a fatuous See Africa
Differently campaign that is little better than self-abuse.
Wherever people are in need, it’s a
charity’s job to tell their fellow human beings about that need and ask them to
help. We must not allow our misplaced guilt at the uneven political and
cultural development of our country in relation to much of Africa, stand in the
way of doing the job charities exist to perform.
P.S. The cultural, political and
economic issues raised in this debate would require a book, at least, to
explore fully, so please accept my apologies that my observations are, of
necessity, sometimes a little truncated.
For anybody interested in looking
at this issue further, this website is a great resource, containing links to many
interesting articles and academic papers. For people with a bit more time and
an interest in the history of how we represent what he terms ‘the other’, Edward Said’s Orientalism remains the seminal text.
Want to check out the latest blog posts from Mark Phillips and Bluefrog's creative team?