"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.