I
will start this essay by raising some questions: why do we study development?
Why do we work in development? Why do international development agencies,
governments, and local organizations invest in the development projects and
campaigns? The simplest answer seems to
be that we do all that to mainly find –and then implement- solutions for
development challenges and issues such as poverty, inequality, war, and HIV. So, what does it mean when international
development campaigns, such as The Girl Effect, locate the solutions for the
main development challenges in girls? This
essay tries to answer the previous question by analyzing visuals of The Girl Effect
campaign.
In their critique of the "smart economics" approach, Chant andSweetman (2012) introduce The Girl Effect campaign as an
example of “smart economics” approach. They state that “the smart economics
approach represents, at best, pragmatism in a time of economic restructuring
and austerity” (p.524) and that smart economics is the descendent of the
“efficiency” approach. Chant and Sweetman
(2012) insist that these approaches are ineffective because they ignore the
structural discrimination against women and because they do not tackle
inequality as a relational issue.
When The Girl Effect campaign was launched at the World
Economic Forum in Davos in 2008, the campaign claimed in its promoting video that “50 million 12-year-old girls in
poverty equal 50 million solution, this is the power of the girl effect”. The video focuses on the individual and local
levels. The problems in the lives of adolescent girls such as child marriage, sexual
exploitation, and medical complications are seen as results of the society and
the backwards men in the poor countries. This emphasis on the local anti-girls
environment are obvious on the sequence scenes that came after minute one when
the video shows the trajectory of the life of a poor adolescent girl after she
survive childbirth. The video predicts that the GIRL “might have to sell her
body” (minute 1:04), then we see two hands grow from letters L in “selL” and Y in “bodY” (minute 1:07), after that another hand will come form above (minute
1:10), and the GIRL with her baby will be surrounded and captured by red hands
and HIV word will pop up (minute 1:15). The campaign uses the tactic of pathos
to mobilize the audience emotionally by invoking feelings of pity toward the
girls and feelings of anger toward the girls’ society.
Now, who will save the 12-year old GIRL from the “bad”
hands, it’s you dear viewer, with your support the girl, who will “fix the
world” can have a healthy and happy future and can be saved from the “HANDS”. The
invitation for the viewer as initiator for changing the destiny of girls and HUMANITY
is highlighted on the same page at “girleffect.org,” where the above-mentioned video
is posted. You will find under the video
square to the right a quote from Mark Lowcock, the permanent secretary of the Department
for International Development (a UK governmental body), who says: “If you
change the prospects of an adolescent girl on a big enough scale, you will
transform societies.”
The consistency of The Girl Effect, as an instance of the "smart
economics" approach, is also emphasized in the second promoting video of the
campaign.
This video is also produced in the same
style as the first one, without any indication to a specific cultural or a
specific geographical location. The videos deliver generalized messages that
girls in all poor countries –you will understand as a viewer that they mean the
global south- are suffering from their backwards communities. To rescue the
GIRL, who represents all the 12-years old girls in the global south, you should
support the campaign, and then an empowered, healthy, happy girl will do the
rest and save humanity’s future.
The founders and the funding bodies of the campaign, such as
the Nike Foundation and the UK government, are keeping mostly invisible. So,
the audience will not directly question the purposes of the campaign. No
specific mechanisms to implement the campaign are provided at the website (girleffect.org),
and there is no evidence of success in achieving the campaign goals after 5
years (2008-2013). The preliminary analysis of the promoting video of The Girl
Effect campaign shows how the “smart economics” approach is changing names
(from “efficiency” to “smart economics”) but keeping practices regarding global
gender inequality and social justice. This approach tackles the gender
inequality as a local problem caused by local obstacles. There is no reference
to inequality as a relational issue. The videos are racialized in how they represent
people in poor countries as homogenous group. The videos discriminate against
women based on their age because the campaign promotes that only 12-year old
girls are worth being saved. Finally, the videos do not refer to any form of
discrimination that is caused by market-led transnational liberalism
exploitation. To sum up, The Girl Effect campaign shows how the “smart
economics” approach preserves the practices and interests of the private
globalized neoliberal market.
Katty, I think this is an excellent analysis of the Girl Effect campaign. I have to admit when I first saw this campaign several years ago, I thought it was very moving. I can certainly understand the appeal to pathos. What I find more interesting about my own experience with this video campaign is that sharing it with others was a regular part of my job when I worked for the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts in London. We would show it to complement our educational sessions on women’s empowerment and our organization specific campaign for the MDGs. The vast majority of the audience to whom I was showing the video were British and American young women. It has a very sensational quality to it that people want to identify with. In addition it is initially difficult to reject, making the solution to poverty seem so simple. Looking back, I think a positive aspect to sharing this video is that it did get our visitors to start thinking about inequalities and gender in the (vague) world at large. However, if they never went on to think more about it or do more research, their only exposure is “smart economics.”
ReplyDeleteIn addition to your analysis, I think it’s worth noting that the solution being the Girl and only the Girl, places an extreme amount of pressure and burden to the Girl’s life. Like we talked about in class, the complexities of woman’s work and responsibly in various aspects of her life do not always allow, for example, 20+ more hours of income generating work in a week. Like you mentioned, the campaign appears to totally ignore context other than just being “third world,” and this could be a flaw in practice.
Wow. Just wow. The tagline “Invest in a girl and she will do the rest” (from the second video) epitomizes Chant and Sweetman’s (2012) argument about “smart economics.” In fact, the “Girl Effect” campaign takes it a step further. Investing in young girls (specifically those in developing countries) not only leads to stronger local economies, but also to a “better world” for all of us. This is illustrated in the equation presented in the second video: girl --> school --> cows-- > $ --> business --> clean water --> social change --> stronger economy --> better world.
ReplyDeleteWhile there are a number of young children (girls and boys) living around the world in dire circumstances (in both developing and developed countries), the campaign does seem (as you mention) directed toward girls in the Global South – a focus most clearly evidenced in the harrowing tale of young girls being forced to get married and have children by age 14. The underlying assumption here is that such practices do not occur in otherwise “civilized” countries – i.e., those in the “West.” What is more, this presentation of young Third World girls in peril also reinforces the characterization of women as “archetypal victims” of male control and violence, which, as Mohanty (2012) explains, “freezes [women] into ‘objects-who-defend-themselves,’ men into ‘subjects-who-perpetuate-violence,’ and (every) society into powerless (read: women) and powerful (read: men) groups of people” (p. 24). It becomes the “duty” of people in the Global North to step in and “save” these women (Abu-Lughod, 2002) – after all, a better world depends on it.
As Maria points out, campaigns such as this one do raise awareness, and that’s an important step in social change. I am reminded of similar organizations, such as Kiva (http://www.kiva.org/) or Heifer International (http://www.heifer.org/), which give individuals the chance to “change lives” by donating money, or in some cases volunteering time. While these organizations’ missions are admirable, they are not unproblematic, especially since they encourage a relatively passive form of social activism and at times perpetuate a homogenous image of people in the Global South.