December 1, 2009
World AIDS Day: active activism and consumption activity
Filed by Lance at 7:15 pm under General
I have to admit, AIDS, AIDS activism, and AIDS awareness are usually under my radar.
I’m grateful, though, for days like December 1, that give me a chance to read people (like Bil) who are much more aware of what’s going on in the fight against what may be the most widespread pandemic to ever confront the human race.
If you’re a little like me, the most conspicuous activism you might encounter in the fight against AIDS is (PRODUCT) RED. Today, it was announced that Nike has joined the (RED) campaign, with products of its own. The idea is simple: when you buy things you might already buy, like clothes, coffee, or electronics, a portion of the proceeds go to AIDS treatment and research.
The idea has always fascinated me. On the one hand, it’s great that people are willing to support products which promise to give to treatment, on the other hand, it’s a uniquely consumerist approach to the problem: do nothing, change the world (with a credit card transaction somewhere in between).
I can’t say I can add anything new to the debate, or say definitively whether there should be one to begin with. People that might not otherwise give money to the cause use swipe their (STARBUCKS) RED card, and boom: $0.05 just went to treatment. It adds up, and begrudging the millions that have been raised so far is looking a gift horse in the mouth. On the other hand, what if you went without that latte for a week, and just donated your coffee money? Or, better yet, take the $195 you were going to spend on those Emporio Armani (RED) sunglasses, and give that.
So who benefits from (RED)? People in Sub- Saharan Africa? Sure, but I wonder if AIDS has really arrived in mainstream consciousness because it’s profitable. It’s good for large companies like Motorola and Hallmark to have (RED) products for the positive market exposure, which makes me wonder: If you get more than you give from your connections with charity, is it really philanthropy?
That’s all I’ve got. Like Bil mentioned, the link to the AIDS Foundation of Chicago is on the right. You should pass up those bright Nike shoelaces, and send $4, or £4, or €4, or ¥477 their way.
You can depreciate your own self-worth all you want, Lance Hall, but you do raise a valid point: just how cynical are we? Aside from our cultural pretensions of there being a solid line between philanthropy and Capitalism, what the hell is stopping us from having that latte AND sending a small donation to a charity? Why can’t we do both? Chances are, if you can buy a latte every day or a new sweater from the Gap once a month, you can also spare a fraction of a percent of your yearly income to a help those in need…Anyway, I think the brilliance of the (RED) campaign is that it doesn’t have to be actual philanthropy on the part of the consumer. It can be totally self-motivated, so that help gets delivered even when some of the money comes from people who don’t give a crap. If you received medical treatment from some anonymous donor that you otherwise couldn’t afford, would it really matter if the donor didn’t care?