Group items tagged

The recurring theme in this debate is that the academic community is unhappy with the stances taken by the advocacy community. Although I still defend the Enough Project’s need for a simple narrative, there’s a difference between a simplification of reality and a distortion of it. Here’s a quick test: try to edit your narrative into a more complete picture of the world. If you only have to add elements, then congratulations, your narrative is just a simplification. If you also have to delete elements, then shame on you, your narrative is probably a distortion.

Unlike a distortion, a simplification is actually backed by and derived from a more considered analysis. A simplification is tied by a clear (if unstated) chain to a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the problem. Some advocates would claim that it’s okay to use a distorted narrative, as long as it leads to the right policies. This thinking is dangerous because it detaches your policy agenda from reality. You start believing your own distortions and lose any assurance that you really are pursuing the right policies. Even worse, other people start believing your distortions.

The academics are unhappy because this distorted narrative can come into conflict with accurate narratives, leading to policy confusion. These kinds of critiques aren’t limited to this particular case. Hype around the issue of child soldiers has also influenced policy and programs, as discussed in a CGD study that Blattman mentioned yesterday. Similarly, the “Save Darfur” movement has been harshly criticized by Mahmood Mamdani in his Saviors and Survivors (2009), which gives an extensive history of how ethnicity, land ownership and outside actors have made the situation in Darfur far more complicated than genocide.* I’m sure there are other examples outside the realm of conflict — maybe something around child labor activism.

Sometimes the correct message is complicated, and doesn’t sell well in the New York Times or Congress. Fair enough. People at Enough know a lot more about marketing than me. I think they’d argue that it’s more important to get attention than to get the message exactly right. Let’s say they’re right (a point I don’t necessarily concede). Here’s my advice: If you’re going to run a vulgar campaign, have the nuanced message in your back pocket for the people in the field who actually have to take action.

As I have previously said to Chris, it deeply saddens me to have read his post today and now your comment, Laura. You deride the Enough Project without understanding the complexity and depth of their work and the very committed and wonderful John Prendergast without ever having met him. How can you possibly find that fair. How do you see that helping the people of Congo. For two professors to behave in such a cruel and immature fashion is distressing and hurtful. I realize that you are not cognizant of this, but you are truly hurting yourselves in the process

Ultimately, I don’t envy the Enough Project’s position. It’s very hard to push policy on one side, while fending off allies who want you to do more on the other. I’d be willing to bet they do have that “nuanced message in the back pocket” that Chris wants, but their job isn’t to spread the nuanced message. That’s the job of academics and implementers. The Enough Project’s job is to make policy change happen. All that said, please keep criticizing them and pushing them to do better. But in the end, if you disagree with their strategic choices, you should leave academia and launch your own advocacy campaign: pick up the phone, raise the money, knock on the doors, and prove to them that a nuanced narrative can sell.