Close Encounters Part 1: Kony 2012

Hello world,

Yesterday and today, I wasn't as hard at work on my Los Angeles essay as I probably should have been. Instead, I attended a pretty great anthropology convention, thrown by St Andrews' own undergraduates called Close Encounters: Bringing Anthropology Home. The whole shindig was sponsored by the Royal Anthropological Institute (RAI) but completely organized and orchestrated by a group of Social Anthropology undergrads, and I must say, they did quite a brilliant job.

I didn't attend every event, but I got to what I could with Peter as my sidekick. There was the "Opening Remarks" presented by the conference coordinator and the director of the RAI, immediately followed by a rather enlightening lecture entitled Kony 2012: Reopening Old Wounds. It was presented by Dr. Aloysius Malagala of Gulu University in Uganda and a PhD student at Keele University, Betty Okot. Ms. Okot had conducted field work in the Acholi area of northern Uganda–the area and ethnic group most affected by the violence of the rebellion. The paper criticized the Kony 2012 campaign for:

• Releasing the viral Kony 2012 video five years after Kony's disappearance.
• Ignoring the complexities of the conflict, including the history of Uganda's ethnic tensions, the displacement of the Acholi people by the Ugandan government, the origin of the rebellion, and the fact that Kony was a leader of one of many military splinter groups that formed during the rebellion.
• Ignoring the land and cattle shortage issues the Acholi people are enduring as the aftermath of actions by both "sides" of the rebellion, if they could really be called sides. 
• Using the plight of the Acholi people, none of whom were involved in the production process or content decisions, to raise upwards of $30,000,000, very little of which ended up reaching them. 

I wasn't a big fan of the video to begin with–the guy who made it came off as a little sociopathic to me, with the whole putting his just-out-of-toddlerdom son on the spot. I also resented seeing people on Facebook who had never been interested in activism call for vengeance for a man who had been missing for half a decade when there were more pressing matters to attend to for the people of Uganda. But who cares as long as it's all going towards helping people, right? 

This presentation was incredibly enlightening when it came to the history behind the conflict (neglected in the video) and what the people of Gulu thought of the video. In short, there were riots. In long form, a white "researcher" came into their community, asked them questions, recorded them, and ended up making a video they thought to be exploitative and opportunistic. Coming back to the title of the lecture, the video reopened old wounds of friends and family lost, home lost, and the neglect their community faced from the international community when their homes were actively under siege. Not only did the video do this–it also profited tremendously. And Invisible Children thought so much of the community that they did not involve them in the process.

Speaking of profit, I did some independent investigation after Ms. Okot mentioned that 60% of the money raised from the campaign went towards administration. I popped onto the Kony 2012 website and found that they made it quite difficult to access a breakdown of Invisible Children's spending. Plenty of breakdowns are given of costs for the Kony 2012 campaign, including a video production breakdown as well as an independent campaign breakdown. A repeated mantra throughout the report is that 81.48% of spending goes to "Programs."Finally, a breakdown of revenue spending arrives on page 76 of 86 of the financial report. Here we find that "Programs" includes the categories Media and Mobilization. These kinds of spending do not reach Uganda. They publish the website, they fund student conventions, and they fund what the report simply calls "Kony 2012," which cost more than $3 million–the clear plurality of all spending. Media and Mobilization make up the majority of "Programs" spending. Here's the link to the financial report, and if you're interested, I encourage you to check it out.

I suppose I'll conclude with a small appeal to anyone who may read this to be critical in their donation choices. Invisible Children does really great things when they do, but Reopening Old Wounds really brought their level of integrity to light. As one of Ms. Okot's informants asked (I paraphrase), If they are willing to use our pain to get money, what will they do when this money dries up? I doubt the people of Invisible Children will go raiding the countryside, but it is a compelling question. If an organization's goal is to help people, I think that it should probably drop some of the budget for fancy campaign videos and devote more to said people. It's the principal of the matter. Essentially, the Kony 2012 campaign spent over half of its revenue in making middle-class-and-up individuals feel a little better about themselves.

Another short point before I tumble into bed: Vengeance is nice sometimes. But the people most devastated by Kony's violence and the government response to Kony's violence (which lasted 20 years without intervention, incidentally) are, as we speak, trying to rebuild their lives. The pain of an entire generation will not disappear if/when a single psychopath is apprehended. The Kony 2012 campaign achieved its goal of making the man famous, but it let his victims be defined by nothing but his brutality. In the eyes of the Acholi who spoke with Ms. Okot, the campaign did little but to reaffirm their status as victims of atrocity. Why did the campaign look backwards more than forwards? 

These are some thoughts provoked by the first, YES, the first presentation of Close Encounters. Watch for more commentary on the presentations and also on my Los Angeles essay. More historical context that will turn your world on its head.

Oh, what anthropology can do...