Edbauer writes that "the intensity, force, and circulatory range of a rhetoric are always expanding through the mutations and new exposures attached to that given rhetoric, much like a virus" (13). Her example of the "Keep Austin Weird" phenomenon fits this very well, but while reading, I thought of another-- the proliferation of causes all clamoring to "raise awareness".
I do want to be clear that I have no objection to causes. Social inequalities, environmental issues, various illnesses, and so on will not be fixed by ignoring the problem, so I applaud those who join in and spend their time and effort on a cause in which they believe. However, some causes do take on a life of their own and the rhetoric spreads until, I fear, it does more harm than good.
The biggest one, to me, is breast cancer awareness. The Komen foundation and others have done a fabulous job of getting the word out, raising funds, finding corporate sponsors, and so on. They have met with tremendous success in raising awareness of the threat of breast cancer and steps every woman can-- and should-- take to avoid losing her life to this disease. All well and good.
However, the "think pink" campaign has taken on a life of its own. I was confronted last fall by a Facebook friend who wanted to know why I didn't turn my page pink for the cure. My answer-- that I'm already aware of breast cancer and didn't need to turn my FB page pink-- did not satisfy her. I tried explaining that no one but me could see the pink page, and that not only was I aware, but also all of my FB friends are likewise aware of breast cancer, before I finally gave up and let her think that I'm an unfeeling jerk.
And my jerkiness doesn't end there-- if anyone should dare suggest that perhaps we ought to move on from awareness and spend some of this energy and money on research, the "awareness" advocates might well be offended. I'm not convinced that the Komen foundation began so that we could all buy all-pink products once a year (in addition to running our pink 5Ks), but that's what it has become for most people. We're so "aware" that the message has lost its punch-- and in fact, it's been co-opted for Facebook memes like posting the color of one's bra or the resting place of one's purse or, most recently, various types of fruit, all in the name of "raising awareness". Actually, it just raises annoyance in those whose news feeds are now cluttered with unexplained, random phrases.
"Raising awareness" has turned into Edbauer's virus, spreading from cause to cause and mutating as it goes, until the whole point of the awareness is lost: Once we're all aware, we're also meant to do something. As long as "raising awareness" remains a buzzword for charities, they are likely to be progressively more ignored, because this is one rhetoric that has so expanded its range as to be commonplace.
Edited to add: Yeah, I read the wrong PDF. That's why this makes no sense. Pretend like you traveled in time to three weeks from now.
This is a huge problem in feminism. Have you ever noticed that there haven't been prominent, media-famous feminists for like fifteen or twenty years, not since Gloria Steinem? Believe it or not, they used to be on the news, commenting on everything as they did political stuff. Now they're all online, commenting on everything and being ignored because they don't DO anything.
ReplyDeleteThough a lot of people will chalk the insanity for "raising awareness" up to its profitability (you can sell pink anything these days for breast cancer, and red anything for AIDS, and green anything for the environment), I think some of it has to do with ideas we developed about the role of institutions and power and how those things can be changed. Somewhere along the line we became convinced that action -- what we think of as real, concrete, political action, things like lobbying senators, building rape crisis centers if there aren't any, training abortionists, or working on cures for breast cancer -- is only accessible to a few people who already have a lot of power and don't want to spend it on social justice causes. Instead, the way to make people care is to culturejam, to buzz, to raise awareness, because theoretically someone will take that awareness and do something with it.
Raising awareness is problematic because it became the END GOAL of all this rhetoric, at least for the person speaking. Rhetoric became too important and the situation became depoliticized -- oddly, no longer a rhetorical situation, not in the same way it was before.
Wow, you said it much better than I did. It's like knowing about injustice is now the ultimate end instead of trying to fix it.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course, I feel dumb because tomorrow I'm participating in One Day Without Shoes, one of the chief aims of which is to raise awareness. :/
Thanks for bringing this up Su. I think a lot of people feel pretty much the same way that you do, but it's difficult (and perhaps socially stigmatic) to condemn what seems to be a benevolent act. Kudos! I agree. So, if awareness for a cause has already proliferated into the mainstream, why ARE people stuck on this phase of the process of correcting the problem?
ReplyDeleteCharlotte mentions profitability and power structure. I want to agree that profitability could be a factor, but it's not likely the main one. Don't charitable, or "conscientious" Americans make a point of buying pink stuff that actually contributes proceeds to the Komen foundation? Perhaps I'm just afflicted with too much faith in the common person.
As a cause, power-structure seems to be more on point. I would agree that the average American perceives social ills as beyond their control. So what does "raising awareness" accomplish for them? Perhaps it gives them/us a perception of being able to wield some small amount of social power for a selfless cause. But if "awareness" is already "raised", we're not effecting any change, just replaying the tape, so to speak. It would seem to be an illusory sense of altruism. We want to FEEL like we're doing something good in our world, and, upsettingly, many of us are satisfied to have "tried" whether or not we made a point of exerting our efforts where they would actually have an effect (to use your example, Cancer Research, as opposed to Cancer Awareness).
Yeah, I think you've really hit it there. Participating in an awareness-raising campaign (like me walking around barefoot all day) does give the feel-good, "at least I'm doing something" aura. And it's possible that we're collectively overwhelmed by the magnitude of the problem, and so taking part in these campaigns helps relieve our anxiety.
ReplyDeleteOr, as in the case of breast cancer, the reality is that only so many people can participate in the hands-on "fixing"; we can't all do cancer research, but we can all buy a can of soup.
As far as profitability, I'm no expert on tax law, but charities do have strict standards they must meet to qualify as non-profits and their financial reports are a matter of public record. I can't remember ever hearing of Komen having a financial scandal, and that seems like something that would be huge news. Other groups engaging in "charitable" activities, however, may be another story. :/