Assignment 4

This post will look at the so-called “Bono-izaton” of activism, which Naomi Klein argues is a “corporatized” form of protest that is “less dangerous and less powerful" than grassroots demonstrations. I will discuss whether I think Klein is correct in her assessment of activism today, and whether it is really less effective and less dangerous. I will also discuss what factors may have made activism by young people today different from that of the Freedom Riders or anti-Vietnam protests, and what is it about today’s social movements that has the potential to be powerful.

Before delving into the subject matter, I feel that a disclaimer of sorts is warranted: U2 is one of my favorite bands. However, I will take an objective position when analyzing these issues, and base my opinions on Bono the activist, and not the lyricist.

Klein accuses (PRODUCT) RED of making the radical claim that it is going to end poverty. (PRODUCT) RED, started by Bono and Bobby Shriver, is a business model created to raise awareness and money by teaming up with the world's most iconic brands to produce (PRODUCT) RED branded products. A portion of profits from each product sold goes directly to a fund to invest in African AIDS programs, with a focus on women and children. Klein also criticizes benefit concerts and calls the concertgoers waving their bracelets “less dangerous and less powerful (than grass roots street demonstrations.)” Delaney, B. “The Bono-ization of Activism”, CNN, October 12, 2007; retrieved on June 26, 2009 from http://www.joinred.com/Learn/AboutRed/FAQs.aspx.

Bono has previously responded to such critics as

cranks carping from the sidelines. A lot of them wouldn’t know what to do if they were on the field. They’re the party who will always be in opposition so they’ll never have to take responsibility for decisions because they know they’ll never be able to implement them. We get hits from the left, we get hits from the right, but in the end, every year, the world’s poor are better off for our presence.

Retrieved on June 26, 2009 from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article732323.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1.

Certainly, this “corporatized” form of protest (buying products and waving bracelets at concerts) is less dangerous than the anti-World Trade Organization demonstration in Seattle in 1999 where injuries included damage from rubber bullets (including taking off part of a person's jaw), smashed teeth, plastic bullet wounds, tear gas injuries, and a lot damage to peoples’ eyes and skin. Retrieved June 26, 2009 from http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1822. But I am not sure that is a bad thing. And I think it is a lot less clear whether “corporatized” protest is less powerful than grassroots demonstrations. Part of the difficulty in answering such questions lies in the fact that comparing these two forms of protests is like comparing apples to oranges. Furthermore, "resistance is not one thing and should not be defined as one thing. It is a multiplicity of different things depending on the strategy implemented." Hequembourg, A. & Arditi, J., "Fractured Resistances: The Debate over Assimilationism among Gays and Lesbians in the United States", The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 4 (1999) (p. 665).

Without question, the effectiveness of grassroots demonstrations has been proven time and time again, from anti-Vietnam, Freedom Riders, Gay Rights, and anti-World Trade Organization protests, to name a few. But today’s youth is much different than the youth thirty, twenty, or even ten years ago. For better or worse (probably worse), today’s youth appear to be much more complacent than previous generations. Many reasons have been given for such complacency, however, that does not mean that today’s youth would not take to the streets in protest of a perceived injustice.

While I am certainly not a fan of global corporatization, this is the world within which we find ourselves these days and, like Bono, I think it a far better approach to work for change within these confines, than to just sit on the sidelines and complain. Let’s face it: people are going to buy things. And until such time that people finally come to realize and scrutinize their behaviors (and purchases), and grasp the fact that such actions have a direct effect on our environment (climate change) and worldwide poverty, we have to accept it. There is, I think, an argument to be made for “pocketbook and wallet protest”. Accordingly, because consumers are going to buy things, I think it far better that they purchase from companies that give to worthwhile causes. Although I am also not a fan of Wal-Mart and refuse to shop there, in 2007 they reportedly gave $296.2 million to charity. Similarly, Target claims to give 5% of its income, which amounts to over $3 million each week, to communities. Retrieved June 26, 2009 from http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2008/02/25/afx4693102.html and http://sites.target.com/site/en/company/page.jsp?ref=nav_footer_community&contentId=WCMP04-031700.

I disagree with Klein regarding the purchasing and wearing of a wristband. I have a “Never Surrender” bracelet from Working Assets. This campaign was started to resist the Bush administration's radical agenda of corporate greed and environmental destruction. Over 70,000 Americans have joined in wearing the Never Surrender bracelet, signifying their commitment to protecting our environment, to promoting human rights, and to acting with compassion and responsibility at home and abroad. Even though I do not regularly wear my bracelet, it does signify to me that I am part of a larger group fighting for ideals we believe in. Similarly, bracelets or other paraphernalia are important and help foster a sense of solidarity in a group, an important aspect of any movement. Just recently, we saw the Iranian soccer team wearing symbolic green bands to show solidarity with their fellow citizens as they continue their protest for democracy. Also, wearing a bracelet signals awareness, which is another important aspect of all movements. So while wearing something is certainly not as powerful as say marching in the street, I believe it serves a very important purpose and should not be roundly discredited. Retrieved June 26, 2009 from http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4240819 and http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/17/iran.football.team/.

From firsthand experience, I also tend to disagree both with Klein in her belief that concerts are not effective in raising awareness, and with another activist who stated: “[n]obody ever changes anything from attending a concert.” A couple of years ago, I volunteered with Rainforest Action Network (RAN) and agreed to man a table at a Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young concert. RAN has thousands of volunteers and believes that a sustainable world can be created in our lifetime, and that aggressive action must be taken immediately to leave a safe and secure world for our children. Far from being “a waste of time”, we informed many concertgoers about injustices taking place, and signed up numerous new potential activists. Again, this may not have been as effective as a grassroots demonstration, but it worked to raise awareness. (Plus, it was a great concert - especially Neil Young’s encore of “Rockin’ In The Free World”, which he didn’t stop playing until he broke all the strings on his guitar.) Delaney, B. “The Bono-ization of Activism; retrieved June 26, 2009 from http://ran.org/about_ran/.

Furthermore, if a movement is striving to reach today’s generation of youth, it must communicate in ways that reach those potential activists; music is one of those ways. In fact, the use of music has often been used in traditional “grassroots” movements to evoke emotion and as a channel of communication among supporters. One such example is Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young’s song “Ohio” that commemorates the spirit of the four lost souls killed unnecessarily in the anti-Vietnam movement at the hands of the government. Eyerman, R. & Jamison, A. (2009) Movements and Cultural Change, The Social Movements Reader, (p. 368) West Sussex, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Regardless of your opinion of Bono the activist, one thing should be clear: Bono the musician has provided what I would argue are timeless and universal words for any movement:

How long…
How long must we sing this song?

Sunday Bloody Sunday, U2




These words ring true not only about the oppression in Ireland that they were written about, but also apply equally well to the human rights that the Iranians are marching for today, to the rights of homosexuals to get married in this country, and to the right of every citizen in the world to breathe fresh air and drink clean water.