Thanks for the interesting range of responses so far. I can understand
the horror that some have expressed with regard to this website, but at
the end of the day is not the World Food Programme just doing its job
as best it can? In a world where levels of governmental aid are
constantly under pressure, it has found (like so many other charities
who nowadays use a variety of corporate sponsorship techniques) a
relatively simple means of generating extra funding.
To state that on moral grounds this website should not exist (or not
have to exist) may be perfectly true, but given the nature of the
situation that organisations like WFP are facing, do they have any
choice? I wonder what we might think if WFP refused all commercial
sponsorship on the grounds that it might be 'dirty money', thereby
reducing its ability to provide the emergency food relief which is its
prime reason d'etre.
As individuals I think this does pose us an interesting moral dilemma.
We can opt to 'press the button' thereby supporting the global
capitalist view and all the injustices that it may be responsible for,
but perhaps achieving some good (even on a limited scale); or we can
opt not to 'press the button', taking the moral high ground that we are
not going to support an injust system, but perhaps allowing an
injustice (albeit on a relatively minor scale) to perpetuate in the
process. Surely if we take the second option, this necessitates some
further action that seeks both to uphold the morality we claim to
adhere to (i.e. fight against the system), and to address the injustice
that may be incurred in the short term.
It strikes me that this is similar to the situation faced if approached
by a homeless person asking for food/money. Do we give them some money,
which may make us feel good, but perhaps provides them with a meal (or
another can of lager), but doesn't tackle the reasons why they may be
in that situation and therefore just leads to increased dependency and
perpetuated injustice at a large scale? Or do we pass them by, telling
ourselves that it is for their own good, promising in our minds to
write a letter to our MP and donate some money to an appropriate
organisation, and hence to tackle the system.
I suspect that most people might opt for something in between (no doubt
New Labourites would be jumping up and down shouting "Third Way!" at
this point), i.e. to give a little to the person on the street, whilst
making a mental note that more needs to be done to prevent homelessness
in the first place.
I would therefore argue that in the case of WFP's website, the
reasonable person would 'click the button' but also take some kind of
action so that in future, these kind of schemes are not necessary.
Being 'critical' or 'radical' as geographers (and other social
scientists, dare I suggest) is all well and good, but it is easy to
focus too much on systems and structures, so that we lose sight of the
people for whom we claim to be critical or radical for. (Maybe this is
a case of not seeing the trees for the wood!)
--------------------------------------------
Tony Jarvis [log in to unmask]
School of Earth Sciences and Geography
Keele University, Keele, Staffs, ST5 5BG.
Tel: 01782 583095 Fax: 01782 715261
--------------------------------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|