Rose-Colored Glasses

Bono and Africa

There is a reason why rock star Bono wears rose-colored glasses: it makes it easier for him to avoid reality. This was made quite apparent last week at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos where he introduced his "Product Red" strategy for tackling AIDS in Africa.

Product Red will be a partner with brands such as American Express, Gap, Giorgio Armani and Converse. Proceeds from this partnership will go to the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria. It's a branding strategy that is in line with what is commonly known as social marketing and what is sometimes called conscience consumerism. It's also part of Bono's larger undertaking: to use his celebrity to influence governments and the private sector to create social good.

While this form of philanthropy (if it can be called that) may sound harmless enough, it actually misses the point and, in the long run, perhaps does more harm than good. In other words, rather than helping to alleviate the suffering of people in Africa, Product Red actually makes it worse.

For one, it reduces a complex enigma to a simple problem. Likewise, the solution is also rather simplistic: just throw money at it. At issue is not only the social conditions surrounding the spread of AIDS in Africa, but also the much larger question of intellectual property rights and the use of generic drugs. Ironically, as one observer noted, "[I] have to laugh at Bono's hypocrisy - against strong Intellectual Property (IP) protection for pharmaceutical corporations but for strong IP protection for phonographic corporations."

Sadly, the primary purpose of market-driven philanthropy is to provide relief not so much for the recipient but for the donor. In this case, Product Red items permit the individual to believe that their philanthropic work is done by simply buying a product. Yet such "philanthropy" inevitably loses its transparency as donors don't know precisely where the money is going. Thus, not only do individuals no longer take responsibility for decisions related to making donations, they don't have to worry about monitoring them either.

Above all this, market-driven philanthropy is primarily of benefit to the promoters themselves, namely as a means to alleviate the guilty conscious of media stars such as Bono, Geldoff, etc. This is especially´so in the music business, where rock and roll is not only here to stay, but is here to pay. Without doubt most (if not all) stars have gone through some sort of soul-searching, for they inevitably realise that they are all part of an exploitative system with unbridled capitalism at its base. Yet, instead of using their celebrity status to attack the system, most choose the easy way out: market-driven philanthropy.

Bono meets Angela Merkel, Federal Chancellor of Germany. Image: World Economic Forum swiss-image.ch/Photo by Peter Klaunzer

There is something presumptuous in all of this, talking about AIDS and poverty while having a good lunch at exclusive resorts such as Davos. The problem stems from the fact that most media stars assume that they have a special connection to the zeitgeist of the moment and to this extend a special moral authority to speak to us and for us. This they attribute this to the fact that they have been elevated in the larger scheme of things because their supposed "talent".

Yet there is also a political aspect to all of this as well. From the web site Bono the Puppet, the following explains the significance of Bono at international forums such as the WEF at Davos:

Appearances by Bono in places like the WEF, therefore, not only profits Bono himself, but also the politicians and policy makers with whom he appears. As one critic writes, "Bono thus becomes a puppet in the 'cleansed' hands of the powerful few." As a result, Bono's "humanitarian activism" ends up restricted to safe and politically correct issues that are in the media spotlight, such as AIDS in Africa; others are simply ignored.

What is perhaps most unsettling about all of this is the neo-liberalist undercurrent which runs through the Product Red concept. During an interview with CNN, Bono was asked about the apparent contradiction between a philanthropic rock star like himself working with large multinational corporations geared toward profits. Bono's reply was that there was nothing inconsistent with this, that he wants the companies involved to make profits and that hopefully Product Red would help them make more profits which, in turn, would mean more donations for the Global Fund to Fight Aids.

If there is any one thing which can be said to be responsible for the deplorable state of the world at present it's this market-driven view of the world, where the pursuit of profit is the end which justifies the means. This is precisely the problem with neo-liberalism, the attitude of leave everything up to the market, that "market forces" will sort everything out. What Bono and others don't say is that market forces are in large part responsible for the tragedy of AIDS in Africa because of the unavailability of cheap drugs.

Thus, rather than attacking the root causes of poverty and AIDS in Africa, Bono's Product Red concept is simply reinforcing those same structures that are contributing to the problems he is trying solve. This, in turn, not only perpetuates the tragedy of Africa, but also allows consumers in the west to avoid thinking too deeply about it, as their attention is focused on whether their credit cards are red or not.

http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/21/21895/1.html