The Price of Personal Consumer Leadership

                Last week I had the pleasure of attending a lecture given by Jared Diamond, Pulitzer Prize-winning author of Guns, Germs and Steel and Collapse: Why Societies Fail. Professor Diamond discussed the role of big businesses in environmental conservation and ethics. He posited a set of four factors affecting a business’s decision to choose and implement environmentally sound practices: economic considerations, attitude of corporate culture, public expectations, and personal leadership.

                Professor Diamond pursued the idea that as consumers, we as individuals have the power to affect corporate actions and influence reactions. The pressure that consumers place on businesses to engage in environmentally and socially sustainable practices can have an insurmountable effect on the day-to-day operation of a business. Through actions spanning the spectrum of activism such as boycotting, lobbying, letter-writing, and word of mouth, Professor Diamond painted a wonderfully idyllic world of accountable corporations.

                I am left questioning the efficacy and even legitimacy of this optimistic view of a global consumerist communion. I agree that with enough pressure, businesses will cave to popular demand in order to avoid a besmirched name and a sagging profit line. But the problem with consumption activism is that it is far too often an inaccessible ideology for many people. Selective purchasing is a luxury reserved for those who can simply put, afford it. If we look at the demographics of who low-cost big businesses serve, we see that they are mainly lower-income, working class or working poor families. Stripping down even further, many of these consumers genuinely do not even have an alternative shopping solution. The big businesses that are able to sell items at such low cost are the only option for those who are struggling to merely be meeting basic needs for themselves and their families.

                It’s clear that usually the lowered cost of items at stores like Wal-Mart comes at the expense of social and environmental responsibility. By taking short cuts in labour rights or environmentally sound practices, usually companies are able to increase profit margins. Is there an option then, a compromise of a responsible corporation who also uses cost-effective solutions to the problem of environmental degradation and socially just working conditions?

                Businesses that are applauded for their altruistic, or at least, morally neutral practices are generally also known for their increased cost of goods, as well as catering to the ‘yuppy’ demographic of young working professionals. Lululemon, Mountain Equipment Co-op, Planet Organic, and smaller independent or local boutiques are innovators in ethical business modelling, but the accessibility of their products must be questioned. Is activism actually an elitist activity that can only be engaged in if you are able to afford it? If you are making minimum wage, all the while trying to put yourself, or your children or family through school, it is hard to find the capacity to consistently boycott those stores that while reprehensible, are the only ones at which you can afford to buy your daily bread.

                In addition to the increasing cost of activism, there is the cost of time. Again, looking at the demographic of the working poor, there is often a lack of disposable income as well as disposable free time. For the single mother of three working two jobs, the ability to search out facts on company policies regarding labour or the environment is hindered. The question now isn’t whether or not we should hold accountable these companies for their indiscretions. It is clear that those of us who are able to make socially sound purchasing decisions should, but the question becomes, how can we make the act of “smart consumption” accessible to more than a bourgeois minority? There is a distinct amount of solidarity that is needed to make a true global shift to a more socially responsible corporate playing field. The language of corporate responsibility needs to become a common one, that is understandable and entrenched in the mind of the average consumer. “Smart consumption” shouldn't be accessible for just one income bracket. 

               

"Voluntourism" and the Consumer Activist

An interesting expository article came across my path discussing very bluntly and concisely the damaging effects of 'voluntourism'. In the article from the UK's Guardian, it refers to this relatively new phenomenon as well-intentioned yet misguided citizens of the 'first-world' attempt to make a difference via hands-on involvement in the social affairs of underdeveloped nations.

While voluntourism definitely warrants its own discussion and discourse, I instead want to address a related phenomenon: the consumer activist. This is very nicely illustrated in the phenomenon of Product(RED). Brainchild of Bono, Product(RED)'s main mandate is to provide people with Africa with increased opportunities, as well as to help eliminate HIV/AIDS across the dark continent.

 Product(RED) has capitalized on consumer activism, with marketing products that include Starbucks lattes, Hallmark greeting cards, and Gap t-shirts. It is speculated that almost $100 million was spent on the launching and promotion of (RED) with meagre returns. Though admirable, it raises alarm bells to think that the average consumer is being tricked into thinking there is a correlation between consumption and the eradication of the world's fastest spreading non-curable disease.

With the human rights activist now becoming a devout consumerist, the fight for social justice has moved from the periphery into the center of government and corporate activity. Instead of the activist putting pressure on the government from the outside to respond to demands, to remain accountable, and to work for the people, the activist has become employed by government or business interests. This means that the pressure from the 'activist' community is muted, as businesses are now focused on catering to the socially-savvy consumer rather than the victim of human rights abuses. 

The meaning of activism has shifted. Instead of the focus on the recipient, we are now focused on the donor.  This new enterprise of 'Human Rights Inc.' represents the watering down of any political heat or pressure that historically has been the foundation of activism. We are no longer yelling demands; we are using our voice to change our latte order or buy a different shirt. 

This brings about an even scarier paradigm shift: the absence of critical thought, investigation, and exposé. As consumers see that, albeit superficially, corporations are at least doing something to be socially responsible, the tendency to look further into the actions of these corporations decreases. We are placated as we jump to the too-convenient conclusion that these corporations are truly do-gooders.  

The depoliticization of human rights and activism spells out certain doom for the traditional activist. True, we may have learned our lesson that riots and demonstrations are not the sole way to create change. In some instances, we do have to work within the system to change the system. However, we still need to radicalize politics, we need to, in a word, frighten policy makers into listening to our demands. We need the demonstrations, the rallies, and the pressure in addition to working with powerful government and corporate entities. Complacency is not an option, and consumerism is far from the answer.

While it is true that it is better to do something than nothing, we need to seriously and consciously evaluate the effects of our actions. We can no longer throw money at problems and believe that change will occur. We can no longer even believe that the money we throw is even going anywhere. Sustainable solutions must be eagerly sought, and this can only occur with critical thought and the engagement of an activist periphery. We need to get angry, we need to get outraged. We can't do that while holding an iPod and a macchiato.  

White Privilege?

Recently, the Edmonton Sun published an article about a campaign in Edmonton that is targeting racism. The campaign, a project of non-profit organization Racism-Free Edmonton, is aimed at getting white people to acknowledge their ‘white privilege’, and how it plays out in social and professional dynamics of power and interaction.

The term they chose surely is a controversial one. Now, it falls upon us to question what the intent of using the term ‘white privilege’ seemed to be for the organization. Perhaps it is an attempt to merely ask Caucasians to acknowledge the fact that white privilege exists. Perhaps it has an even stronger aim, to eliminate the presence of white privilege. However, it must be known that white privilege is something that exists after being manufactured, stolen, remodelled, and engrained through centuries of dirty history.

Despite what the intent of Racism-Free Edmonton was with the campaign, the use of the term ‘white privilege’ was quite a risk on the part of the organization. No matter what your knowledge is of the history of colonialism, imperialism, slavery, or minority rights movements, the term evokes strong links to overt acts of racism. It calls to mind prominent images of Ku Klux Klan, plantation owners beating slaves. In less violent and grotesque impressions, it calls up middle-upper class white suburbia, white tourists naively enclosed in white sand beach resorts being served by quaint  and subservient ‘locals’.

The problem is that here, in Edmonton, Alberta, the average citizen does not conjure up those images in his or her head. Instead, it is taken as offensive, as a direct attack on the morality and ethicality of one’s own value system and way of life. Indeed, reading the comments section of the article in the Edmonton Sun it became quite clear that the campaign did not work to instil awareness in the broader population. Rather, the article saw a viewership becoming more and more irate, more offended, and sadly, more racist. It’s the quintessential human defense system, in an environment of attack, our hackles raise and the claws come out. Some of the comments I read evoked personal emotion for me, as a minority female, and I almost felt unsafe.

The majority of the racism that we see today is not the kind of overt racism that we associate with the KKK or slave owners. Rather, it is a very subtle, very nuanced form of racism that manifests itself not only as power dynamics, but as awkward social situations, xenophobia, and wildly misplaced assumptions about identity. As a minority myself, I can count on two fingers the number of times I have been the target of outright racist remarks. However, the number of times I have felt different, ostracized, or disadvantaged because I am not white are innumerable. I am from a middle-upper class family, have a university education, and speak only English. I am by no means ‘underprivileged’. But the point of the campaign by Racism-Free Edmonton is to call on people to recognize just this fact: that racism is inherent in our social structures, simply because there exist colours of skin. Unfortunately, the campaign went about detailing this in the wrong way.

Most people I meet are not racist. They may be uninformed or just unaware. They are not ignorant people. But, they are human. If you call them racists, they will respond. The pointing of fingers is the absolute wrong way to win people over to a cause, to encourage self-reflection, or even to get someone’s attention. Racism-Free Edmonton marred an excellent campaign by playing the blame game, and as a result, it seems as though the counter-response of the population has become one of increased xenophobia and discrimination.

I admire the audacity of the organization to use the term ‘white privilege’. But in our climate, in our political environment here in Edmonton, Alberta, was this the smartest move? We need to tread carefully when we deal with any social justice issue. We have no hope but that of raising awareness. Surely, education is the strongest weapon in our artillery. To put forth a campaign without a solid base of support is suicide. The only people who will subscribe to the idea that white privilege exists are those who probably already know all about race dynamics. The campaign thus far has only served to alienate the broader population, and it is at the expense of minorities. The potential backlash is frightening. The City of Edmonton is aware of this, and has pulled support for the initiative. In the meantime, Racism-Free Edmonton must engage in some serious damage control. How they will do this, I’m not sure. But I hope that their next attempt is one that seeks to be far more inclusive, educational, and enlightening.