The Demise of “Invisible Children” or the Pitfalls of Trending Humanitarianism

by Cilas Kemedjio

Jeffrey Sachs, once the golden boy of brutal and anti-social market driven reforms, became a star in the humanitarian circles with a reputation as an economist with a heart. In her book on Jeffrey Sachs, Nina Munk writes:

“The End of Poverty” was a best seller, and people were lining up, sometimes for hours, to hear Sachs speak. Time magazine added him to its list of most influential people. There was a Jeffrey Sachs fan club, a registered not-for-profit organization that, having purchased the domain name Sachsforpresident.org, was dedicated to drafting him as the next president of the United States. At Columbia University, you could buy T-shirts stenciled with the words JEFF SACHS IS MY HOMEBOY.

Sachs became friends with Bono–mostly known for his campaign for debt relief for poor indebted countries—who wrote the preface to The End of Poverty. Bill Gates, Georges Soro, and other philanthropists, are among his backers. At the height of his glory, he filmed a documentary with Angelina Jolie, the humanitarian megastar, for MTV. According to The Economist, in 2012, his run for World Bank President was, at best, a long shot:

Mr. Sachs has ridden the wave of celebrity, teaming up often with such stars as the U2 singer Bono. But those days of poverty porn at rock concerts (slo-mo famine on giant screens to accompany the music) have also drawn to a close.

Jeffrey Sachs’s story, I argue, may also be the story about the pitfalls of trending humanitarianism. If foretells the demise, or at least helps to make sense, of the downfall of “Invisible Children.”

The announcement that “Invisible Children” will soon close, or at least significantly scale down its operations is a sad commentary on the marketing of humanitarianism. It is another warning on the pitfalls of social media driven humanitarian interventions. The branding of poverty or suffering, modeled on classic marketing strategies, further pushes humanitarian ventures into the market logic. It seeks a democratization of aid by mining channels of consumer giving. We are reminded in this story that it all started in 2003 when three aspiring California filmmakers traveled to Uganda in search of a compelling story. The story of innocent children targeted by Joseph Kony, the Lord’s Resistance Army leader, was indeed able to capture and hold the attention of social media consumers. The suffering of these children was strong and forceful, causing the young audience to assist the unfortunate children in danger.

The humanitarian urge made “Invisible Children” an overnight sensation. Donations poured in for years. Politicians joined in as President Obama sent in the military to hunt down and capture or kill Joseph Kony. The promoters trumpet this militarization as one of their successes. Yet we should remind them that the militarization of humanitarian interventions has become a trademark of a rampant militarist foreign policy, from “Restore Hope” in Somalia to recent NATO campaigns in Libya by way of Bosnia and Kosovo. Beyond this dubious association with geo-strategic interests, we should also be concerned about the invisibility of these children in the accounting books. If we compare the disproportionate amount of resources devoted to marketing and operational expenses, it could be reasonably argued that these children were relegated to a rather marginal role. The suffering of the children in Uganda is a legitimate humanitarian concern. All who dedicated their time, effort, and resources in alleviating this misery should be saluted and encouraged. The trends will come and go, but only sustainable actions will prove to be useful.

Dr. Kemedjio is Director of the Frederick Douglass Institute for African and African-American Studies at the University of Rochester and co-editor of the CIHA Blog.