The life of an individual can be juxtaposed with each ones unique stepping-stone path of aspirations. Every action can therefore be paired with a narrow-minded desire to conquer the next goal that lies ahead of them. The question is however; do these conceptualized trails eventually converge to reveal the ultimate pursuit of equality in human development and welfare? Or are we simply selfish, power seeking individuals in a battle to reach the top?
At LSE, members of the sixteen societies linked with philanthropy and equality seem to conform to the first of these stereotypes. With “fundraising” and “raising awareness” as their central aims, societies including Oxfam, Amnesty International and UNICEF actively attempt to make a difference. The interesting thing however, is that although all sixteen societies at LSE of this nature place emphasis on opening our eyes to such crucial global dilemmas, how many of us can actually pinpoint and distinguish between these three institutions? In other words – if given the choice to donate to just one of these charities, on what grounds does one base their decision? Be it the global reputation due to celebrity publicity, or the ‘convenience’ of selecting a particular cause, the irony of is that in reality, a minority of us are very “aware” at all.
In contrast to these universally recognized organizations, LSE societies have incorporated specific targets to groups including Feminism, Social Justice and Racism. To an extent, these societies are in fact more benevolent than the international welfare seekers advertised around us. Week 3 at LSE was labeled the “LSESU Islamic Society charity week” where funds were raised in collaboration with Islamic Relief targeted at orphans around the world. On interviewing committee members, their enthusiasm for the specific cause on a personal level shone through as an explanation for their immense success. This is one of many advantages of small-scale, targeted philanthropy. However, the dark side to this shiny coin begs the question: If these members truly envision global justice and human rights at the end of the tunnel, can a single student led society actually have a substantial influence on the world? Or is the word “charity” used as a mask to conceal an underlying motivation?
As students attending a university with a reputable “Banking Culture”, the role of the consumer and the producer is familiar to us all. The next stepping stone for the consumer is to purchase a product that maximizes utility; and what better way to spend our money than on that pink diary that supports breast cancer, or that (RED) collection t-shirt to combat disease in Africa. We walk out of the store proudly modeling our new “MAC” lipstick, satisfied that our purchase has lifted a rural peasant out of poverty. What an efficient method of maximizing utility! This concept of “Brand Aid” publicized by the likes of Bono and Angelina Jolie has recently been seen as little more than transforming the definition of product consumption into a mechanism for ‘compassion’. Further, the Marxist concept of “commodity fetishism” gives rise to the fundamental question: If these products are aimed at eliminating poverty, what justifies the manufacture of the very t-shirt advocating philanthropy in a South East Asian sweatshop?
We have been sucked into this whirlpool of consumption intertwined with the act of ‘giving’, with the view that our purchase has somehow placed a small dent in making the world a better place. Slogans flashed in front of us questioning whether “the shirt off your back can change the world”, or providing us with the satisfaction that our decision to “Do the (RED) thing” has actually made an impact. On the surface, this is all well and good – but beneath messages from the smiling celebrities and the flashy ad campaigns, our purchase has acted as little more than a substitute for the ‘old style’ charity of volunteer and social work we may have otherwise done. Not only is this apparent on an individual level, but the pressure on governments as AID donors has been weakened due to the misconception through publicity that global welfare is finally under control.
Consumption of items marked “fair trade” add another dimension. The familiar green and blue symbol plastered on our favorite foods adds a sugar coating of contentment to the counteract the guilty pleasure of consuming the calories in that Cadbury’s Dairy Milk chocolate bar. Have we once stopped to think that purchasing the subsidized farm produce is a disguise for simply paying peasants to remain in the very profession that has kept them from development in the first place? We can all infer that as our demand increases for such products, so must the supply to maintain equilibrium at this subsidized price. The result: over-reliant primary sector workers sinking deeper into a comfort zone chained to the rock-bottom stage of development.
Not only is the consumer to blame for this, but the producer and entrepreneur have used the notion of “charity” as nothing more than a marketing tool to maximize profits. A simple addition of the phrase “some of the profits go to charity” acts as a magnet luring us into purchasing their product. According to the independent, “Many charities – do not help the most needy… the charitable sector gives a “misleading” impression of alleviating poverty in order to secure tax breaks and voluntary support”. Further, charities phenomenal administration costs are presented as 5 to 13 per cent of expenditure. When this is seen as a numerical figure, the example of UNICEF’s current 2 million US dollars spent annually on management makes us question whether smaller scale activity could have put this money to better use.
LSE societies have without a doubt managed to raise a considerable amount for charity through RAG events, Timeless and Student Auctions to name a few. As students at the school, we should take pride that a student organized production is not a mask for corruption and profit maximization, and that the proceeds of the bake sale on Houghton street is not discounted to cover the cost of raw materials in production, or the wages of an underpaid factory worker. Although these small gestures may seem minuscule in comparison to Live 8, or the sale of Starbucks fairtrade coffee – we can confidently recognize our action as a genuine one.
So whether your particular trail is headed in the direction to obtain universal equality for all, or to one day be a thriving entrepreneur – be proud that the two extremes were not mixed getting to the next stepping stone at LSE, and the fight for humanity was not used as an tool to fulfill selfish desires. In the words of Mother Teresa, “We ourselves feel that what we are doing is just a drop in the ocean. But the ocean would be less because of that missing drop.” In my opinion, a small pure drop is a hundred times more efficient that a large poisonous one contributed by powerful global welfare institutions. Take pride in LSE’s contribution to humanity, because you never know – we just might change the world one day.
No related posts.