(Re)inventing the Sacred

So I’ve heard a great deal about about this new “socially conscious” consumer venture called the RED Campaign. I have friends who have bought the products and so this post is not meant to trivialize or demean their sense of justice or charity. I simply want to point out a few reasons why I’m boycotting the RED Campaign.

First, the percentage of funds that is actually directed to Bono’s charitable organization, the Global Fund, is relatively small. For example, the RED iPod nano, which sells for $199 dollars, brings a donation of $10. That’s a 5% donation. Another example is that of the RED American Express Card to be released in the UK this Fall. Roughly 1.25% of all purchases made with the card will be directed to the global fund. That means for the purchase of a $200 watch, $2.50 will automatically go to the Global Fund. With amounts as small as these, I wonder if the RED campaign is even worth all the hype. Certainly small amounts of money given to fight poverty and aids in Africa is better than no money at all, but many critics of the RED campaign cite Lack of transparency on the part of ad agencies, the Global Fund and all of the companies involved in the campaign as their primary impetus for disavowal of the cause. Another part of the problem that I have with the RED campaign’s shallow funding of actual, concrete efforts to fight AIDS and poverty is that the amount of money spent in advertising is astronomical compared to the amount reportedly directed to the Global Fund. Various sources from the NY Times to the Christian Science Monitor cite advertising funds ranging from 90 to 150 million dollars spent on advertising and a mere 15 to 25 million actually directed to the Global Fund. The fact that the figures are so hard to come by and contested by such reputable and various sources throws up an immediate (RED) flag that something isn’t right with this campaign. Certainly 25 million dollars is much more than I could ever afford to give but if the money comes from companies such as the Gap and Converse whose ethical manufacturing practices have been called into question and constantly criticized by organizations such as Sweat-Shop Watch and Human Rights Watch then I wonder whether it might simply be more beneficial to simply hand over $500 dollars a year to the Global Fund (or some other more transparent charity organization)? The issue of private charity prompted by consumeristic advertising and the incessant need of most Americans to constantly shop for more stuff brings me to the next reason that I am boycotting the RED Campaign.

The RED Campaign teaches us that our primary purpose in life is to consume. I must confess that I do not live in poverty. I own a new car, a couple of computers, numerous guitars, and many other luxuries that people throughout the world do not have. I write from the perspective of someone who will probably always live a middle-class lifestyle (that is unless the American government continues to widen the gap between the poor and the wealthy - but that’s another post). I also do not feel ashamed that I am not poor. Certainly there is widespread contempt heaped upon the wealthy by those who champion the rights and well-being of the poor. I am not writing to heap indignation and contempt upon the wealthy but to question the morality of a campaign to aid women and children suffering from aids in impoverished areas of African nations that relies on extreme American consumerism and greed to achieve its aims. The second, and primary, reason that I am boycotting the RED Campaign is that it takes for granted to idolatrous assumption that the primary purpose of human life is to consume. I have a bumper sticker on the back of my car from ConsistentLife.org that reads, “Respect all Life. Practice Nonviolence.” I was challenged the other day by a friend of mine who asked me point-blank if the reason that I placed this sticker on my car was that I wanted to feel good about myself. I had to concede that yes, a part of the reason was that having a “social justice” bumper sticker on my car for all to see makes me feel better - like I’m making a difference. I have other reasons, but this is one of them. I thought about his question and I have debated ever since whether or not I should remove the sticker. After all, it takes more than a bumper sticker to live a life of nonviolence and I wonder whether, given the warm fuzzy feeling I get by “doing good,” if this sticker isn’t a bad thing for me. Does my self-righteousness “fit” the cause I am advocating? In the same way, does the blatant consumerism and greed fostered and fueled by the RED Campaign “fit” the cause of global poverty and AIDS relief? Does telling already overly-wealthy, obese, oil dependent, middle-to-upper class white Americans to shop more (even if part of the money goes to help someone else) a good idea? In a world where few people question the morality of driving vehicles that are both terribly inefficient and pridefully huge or buying clothing that was made by an impoverished child in a country far-far away, is it really a good idea to feed the egos of frenzied consumers by telling them that if they just spend more money, they might make a difference in the life of some person they’ll never meet?

These are just the two primary reasons that I have decided to boycott the RED Campaign (aside from the obvious reason that I can’t even afford most of the products to begin with). Overall, I wonder about whether it is right or safe to funnel charitable giving to important causes through the global consumer culture machine. I have perused the RED Campaign’s website and it is all very streamlined and “laid out” in such a way that it seems reputable (and maybe it is). But I am troubled by the apparent gap between the amount of money spent on advertising and the actual amount given to the Global Fund - not to mention the overt profit garnered by companies such as the Gap and Converse who have a reputation for overt human rights abuses throughout the world. Further, I am troubled by the encouragement of (to be candid) buying more useless crap in order to serve others. I recall Norman Wirzba and Wendell Berry’s quote from my previous post that says, “Service is the art of the commonplace, the art that willingly enters into life with others and the earth and seeks the flourishing of all. The labor of art, which here stands in contrast with the reductive, instrumental tendencies implicit in the desire to explain and control, seeks to expand our vision and make it more faithful to the mystery of grace that comprehends and sustains all.” The RED Campaign, simply because it encourages unrestrained consumption of things that we do not need - often, because of sweatshops and unethical corporate practices, at the expense of others people and the earth, is the opposite of service. I believe that the RED Campaign is a lie that is meant simply to help multi-national corporations earn more and more money at the expense of others. Further, I wonder if, instead of buying more, shopping more, killing ourselves slowly with more soulless consumption of useless junk, it wouldn’t be more beneficial to simply write a check to the global fund or take time off from work to actually visit and serve those who suffer in poverty and in the grip of AIDS and the many other diseases that degrade humanity. If service involves the willing entering into life with others (the messy, hard, reality of life) then the RED Campaign is war not service. By encouraging people to “give” to charity by simply doing what they already do are we teaching service or are we encouraging a passive, unengaged, disconnected, pseudo-life that can never know the true meaning of service or sacrifice. Just a thought.