Exploitation or Accurate Representation?
The nonprofit world is full of wonderful people doing wonderful things. The nonprofit world in the US allows for needs to be met that cannot/are not met in the private business world (the market) or in the services provided by government agencies. I work for a nonprofit organization and also serve on the board of directors for another. And I fully believe in the causes these organizations work for.
But I often wonder to myself about the way that we talk about the needs that we are meeting. Organizations and people working in organizations have their “go to” stories of success and trauma that they use to talk about the work they are doing. To be honest, I have them, from my work with immigrants and refugees as well as my work with orphans in African and Russia. They are gut-wrenching, heart-breaking, and mind-numbing. Suffering, poverty, pain, isolation…people really are experiencing these. I have seen it. And I have told others about it.
What I am wondering is this: what is our moral obligation when we tell these stories? Are we free to tell these stories how we want, when we want? What are the limits on telling such stories? Organization use stories in order to raise financial support, to communicate about the work they do, to show how they are different than other organizations who do similar work. But is it all fair game in the nonprofit world? What are inappropriate ways to use stories and images? How does an organization accurately present their work without overstating the case, without manipulation, and without taking advantage of people?
On this idea of taking advantage of people…I was recently reading material about how nonprofit organizations can effectively raise money. Not a bad thing. All nonprofits must do it to fulfill their mission. And there are people out there who want to give to such work. In the material I was reading, the author stated that people are more likely to give when they hear an emotional and compelling story. A study cited actually showed that people respond more to one simple, moving story that than they do statistics. Perhaps this is because we most identify and connect with narrative as opposed to numbers. Perhaps this is because we respond to the emotional more than to the cognitive (numbers). But is it possible to use the results of this study to manipulate people into giving? Or is their giving simply an expression of their own free will to give their money to whomever they wish, whether they are giving out of the emotion of a moment or something else? And, to take it perhaps a step further, is it possible that the showing of images and telling of stories actually exploits those who suffer? Even if showing pictures and tellings stories is “for a good cause”?
What do you think?
2 Comments »
Leave a comment
-
Archives
- August 2009 (5)
- July 2009 (2)
- April 2009 (7)
- March 2009 (8)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
I wrote a bunch and lost it.
Here goes again…
I think it ultimately depends on your motivation. Kant says that the ends don’t justify a means that is immoral or unrighteous. No matter what. Aristotle plays it a little looser, looking more at the person acting than the situation — are you acting with virtues or with vice?
I think it’s somewhere in the middle. I think if you’re going in to a meeting with the sole objective of getting money, then you are “using” the stories and the people in them. You’re manipulating the audience with violins and pictures of sad children. You’re using the people as an ends to get what you want — money for your non-profit — and even though that end is “good” (ie, you can feed the hungry, house the poor, etc), the means are unfocused. Your focus is on raising the funds not on helping the kids.
If your goal is to educate, to open the eyes of those who can’t travel to Russia, to show the injustices of the world to those who haven’t seen the suffering — oh, and if they want to give to help you out, great — then I think you’re doing the people in the stories justice. You’re working to bring these people alive for your audience, you’re not working to get them to write a check. The end result may be the same, but the motivation I think makes a difference to the people in your stories.
Imagine if you were the subject of those stories. If I were to use your life to keep my non-profit afloat, would you feel honored or angry? If I used your life to get people to care about you and others like you, would that make a difference?
For me, I think the motivation of the speaker is key. The business man in the office who is checking the numbers and balancing the books — who cares (to an extent) how he views the people in the stories. He/she’s not out there mingling with the audience. He/she can push you to go to one more church that week because you need to build that new orphanage. But, when you get up to represent those less-fortunate, I think you’re obligated to do it with the intention of sharing a story to get people to care and invest emotionally. If they invest financially, all the better.
I like what justadoc had to say.
Personally, I find myself emotionally connected to those stories. I’m probably more likely to donate to a cause where I see faces, hear stories, etc. If I just hear statistics and numbers, I might not feel as connected.
Perhaps that’s wrong to say, but I think most people connect more to faces and stories. It puts a “name” to that situation. Instead of just donating to such and such orphanage, I’m going to be helping little Susie with her sweet blond curls find a home.