World AIDS Day and the unbearable lightness of, like, Kim Kardashian
Well, will soon be upon us. I've been bracing for another and whatever other kinds of ridiculousness might ensue in the name of marketing disguised as "awareness-raising." But I wasn't prepared for this:
On Wednesday, Kim Kardashian is going to die a little. So is her sister, 碍丑濒辞茅, not to mention Lady Gaga, David LaChapelle, Justin Timberlake, Usher, Serena Williams and Elijah Wood.
That day is World AIDS Day, and each of these people (as well as a host of others 鈥� the list keeps growing) will sacrifice his or her own digital life. By which these celebrities mean they will stop communicating via Twitter and Facebook. They will not be resuscitated, they say, until their fans donate $1 million.
Dear sweet heavenly daylights. Internets, we have an opportunity to shut the Kardashians down for good. Don't fail us.
Seriously, though, if this ain't some badvocacy, then I don't know what is. I have no idea whether Alicia Keys runs a reputable charity or not. (Tom Murphy at A View from the Cave helpfully points out the fact that.) The Keep a Child Alive website features but very little hard data.
What I do know is that the campaign has lots of markers of the sort of advocacy that raises eyebrows among people who know what they're doing with these things. What are those telltale signs?
- The campaign emphasizes the innovative use of social media over what the money raised will actually be used for beyond vague promises to "keep a child alive."
- Rather than allowing the voices of those living with HIV/AIDS to be heard, the campaign is all about celebrities and their voices or the lack thereof. The campaign reduces people living with HIV/AIDS to helpless victims in need of foreign saviors.
- There's no measurement and evaluation data on the organization's website that I can find. That data may or may not exist, but without it, there's no way to evaluate whether Keep a Child Alive is using the most effective measures possible to address the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
- This particular event appears to be an attention-grabbing stunt. Need I point out that pictures of celebrities in coffins have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual experiences of people living with or in communities affected by this epidemic?
And then there's this:
鈥淲e鈥檙e not one of those enormous twinset-and-pearls kind of bureaucracies; we鈥檙e a small, energetic activist organization,鈥� Ms. Blake says. 鈥淎nd we think the language of donations is boring.鈥�
Ms. Keys agrees, describing her philanthropic approach as simply 鈥渞ock star.鈥�
鈥淓verything is done just rebellious,鈥� she says. 鈥淵ou want to show all your folks and your friends: 鈥楲ook what I鈥檓 into. Get into it, too!鈥欌��
Anybody want to take bets on whether a "rebellious" activist organization that's bored with standard procedures for donations bothers to do measurement and evaluation?
(Hat tip for the link to , whom, it just so happens, actually studies community responses to and understandings of HIV/AIDS. You should read her work.)
鈥� Laura Seay, a professor of political science at Morehouse College, blogs from .
