The hazy ethics of foreign aid and intelligent television.

Two recent podcasts from American Public Media got me thinking about how the complex ethics of foreign aid is ripe fodder for the renaissance of intelligent television. I was then reminded of David Simon's finale letter to fans of The Wire in which he writes: 

"We tried to be entertaining, but in no way did we want to be mistaken for entertainment. We tried to provoke, to critique and debate and rant a bit. We wanted an argument. We think a few good arguments are needed still, that there is much more to be said and it is entirely likely that there are better ideas than the ones we offered. But nothing happens unless the shit is stirred. That, for us, was job one."

It seems to me that a few good arguments are still needed in the world of foreign aid and international development.  Dambisa Moyo and her impressive/endless marketing of "Dead Aid" has definitely helped re-energize the argument.  But the argument that has momentarily emerged is overwhelmingly characterized by extremes - best illustrated by the Sachs v Moyo/Easterly flare up in the Huffington Post from a few months back.  Too much of the current talk around foreign aid is either for or against - more aid or no more aid.  There is very little examination of the many shades of gray in the foreign aid debate.  Again, David Simon:

"We are a culture without the will to seriously examine our own problems. We eschew that which is complex, contradictory or confusing. As a culture, we seek simple solutions. We enjoy being provoked and titillated, but resist the rigorous, painstaking examination of issues that might, in the end, bring us to the point of recognizing our problems, which is the essential first step to solving any of them."

I think audiences in the developed world are ready for a more nuanced examination of aid and development (so long as it's presented under the guise of entertainment).  The boom in undergraduate and graduate enrollments in global health programs certainly points to a growing interest and audience.  I just hope we don't spoil this moment with more skin deep awareness campaigns and one-sided storytelling.  I'm sure many in this field are asking for the global health/extreme poverty equivalent of An Inconvenient Truth.  Films like this could certainly help intensify interest and increase involvement among those already interested and involved.  Just bear in mind that they're not likely to change public opinion overall. Nor are they likely to engage new minds and stimulate fresh thinking.  

Surprisingly, serialized television may be the most effective medium to explore the complex, nuanced world of aid and development.  It has the capacity to not only create issue awareness, but it can actually engage audiences to think beyond the polarizing headlines and over-simplified sound bites of most mainstream media.  And it can capture and sustain the interest of an audience far broader than just those already prone to pay attention.  The Wire did so in their authentic examination of the social, political, and economic life of a struggling American city.  As did Battlestar Galactica as they explored religious fanaticism, global politics, terrorism, and the very question of what it means to be human.  Shows like these demonstrate that entertainment media can actually help us think about the complex issues that shape our world.  And they may even encourage us to engage and demand a more effective response. 

I realize that using entertainment television to promote social issues and influence behavior is nothing new.  But as far as I know, all previous efforts have been either purely didactic or secondary to the show's central narrative (i.e., social issue as product placement).  I'm not interested in more aid propaganda or message placement.  I'm interested in a thoughtful and engaging exploration of the moral, economic, political, social, religious, and cultural tension embedded within the world of international aid and development.  The intersection of all these themes and the communities they represent could make for a very compelling storyline using what Stephen Johnson calls "multiple threading" - a collection of distinct narrative strands that are woven together in order to tell a more complex and comprehensive story (see Everything Bad is Good For You).  And there's no shortage of archetypes to draw interesting characters from.  You've got bleeding hearts, egomaniacs, eggheads, adrenaline junkies, politicians, bandits, missionaries, distant donors, neocolonialists, geeks, medics, investors and more.  Some are inept.  Some are corrupt.  Many are smart and ambitious.  Most are interested in doing good. And all save a few are first and foremost concerned with their next promotion or personal salvation.  They are conflicted characters will colorful back stories.  Take this vivid description from Tales From The Hood of one curmudgeonly aid worker for example:

"He was crusty, cranky, jaded, cynical, field-hardened, and prone to sweeping generalizations and ridiculously extreme pronouncements. A lifetime of aid work had taken it’s toll on his body and on his personal life. He’d been divorced a couple of times and had a couple of chronic conditions of the sort that you to tend pick up when your life is spent in or bouncing between impoverished places, always a little bit ill, sleep-deprived and far from family for weeks/months on end."

I'm doubtful that many working in aid and development advocacy would support this kind of program.  On the face of it, a program that looks at all sides of the issue (good, bad, and everything in between) certainly doesn't explicitly advance their objectives.  But smart marketers today know that to change attitudes and behavior audiences need to be involved in the process of meaning making.  Or as Thierry Lefebvre writes in Creative Capitalism "some initial haziness - or room for improvement - can stimulate discussion and bring out ideas; haziness can be an effective marketing strategy."  There is no doubt room for improvement in our collective effort to improve the health and well-being of people living in the world's poorest places.  And maybe an authentic examination of foreign aid and development on the fictionalized small screen would help stimulate new ideas and build a broader base of support.  But if nothing else, it would certainly make for good television.

photo credit: zinarcotics/flickr

Comments

[Jennifer Lentfer]

Dear Chris,

I've really enjoyed reading in development: field notes on development from Western Kenya. Congratulations. And this post particularly hit home for me.

In working with international development agencies over the years, I found myself continually experiencing the limitations of donor-controlled, project-based funding and the need for community-driven development initiatives that were genuinely responsive to local needs. Much of the feedback from colleagues over the years echoes the same.

That's why I'm launching http://www.how-matters.org.

My blog explores the skills and knowledge needed by all international “do-gooders” to truly raise the level of human dignity within international assistance and to put real resources behind local means of overcoming obstacles. From my perspective, it's not about what we do, but HOW we do it.

Postings will include good practices, reflection & rumination, guest bloggers, links and resources, and will (hopefully) inspire dialogue among a fuller, more inclusive community of those involved with foreign aid and international assistance around the world.

I would appreciate if you would include "How Matters" in your list of related blogs. I've already done this for your blog.

How-matters.org is an expression of my professional, but more importantly, a personal resolve to nurture alternative models of international development that genuinely build on the dignity, knowledge, skills, culture, and abilities of local people.

The journey begins…and thanks for your support.
Jennifer

[Graduate Dissertation]

Thank you for sharing this information. The information was very helpful and saved a lot of my time.

[Coach Factory Outlet]

It can bring strangers closer to each other, turn estrangement into reconciliation, give hope to the disappointed and replace vexation with joy.