The Rights Exposure Project

Paul Close's photographic project 'The Snakebox Odyssey' asked a simple question, 'Is there one thing that could make your life better?' and in doing so was one of the most creative uses of photography I came across this year.

I know, I know, its a bit of a headline title but as this article rounds of one year dedicated to looking at the use of photography, video and all that other visual stuff used in social activism I thought it appropriate to end with a grand claim. But to be honest with you I can’t answer the question of ‘How NGOs should be using photos and video in social activism‘. Not that you needed telling that because, as regular readers will know this just takes us back to all that ‘does dieting work‘ absurdity. The other reason is, despite having looked at hundreds of examples of visuals put into the service of social activism, I feel that the answer will always be evolving. This is particularly the case at present with the explosion of possibilities offered by the digital revolution and Web 2.0. We are like frontiers men in new territory (minus the genocide of indigenous people that is, unless that is photographic film…hmmm probabaly wise to leave this metaphor alone).

Activists demonstrating in support of a photography exhibition "Into Exile: Tibet 1949 - 2009" at the Drik Gallery in Dhaka. Drik came under tremendous pressure to close down the photographic exhibition from both the Chinese Embassy and officers from the Bangladesh Police Special Branch. This was one of the most powerful reminders of both the power of images and governments desire to censor.

I started The Rights Exposure Project blog in February 2009 in an attempt to answer two questions. One of them is;

‘How can I use visual media better in my work as a human rights campaigner?’

Eight years working at Amnesty International in London is enough for me to say with some authority that both personally and as an organisation we are not using visual media as well as we could. I do not mean that we are not using enough photos and video (though sometimes we do not), or that they are not of an adequate quality (though sometimes they are not), but that we have failed to recognise the true power of these media as a tool to increase the impact of our work. We are effectively tying one arm behind our backs. Our one good arm (the most widely staffed and funded) remains the tried and tested research that Amnesty International is known for. Presented as written reports, the organisation must bang out around one hundred of these every year (a quick search on the Amnesty library turns up 119 written reports verses 13 audio-visual products in 2009), year after year, sending them off to governments, business leaders, academics, NGOs and the media. These are accompanied by numerous press releases and briefing papers. All good stuff, a veritable production line of evidence documenting human rights abuses across the globe delivered directly to those with the power to make the required changes, assuming there is the necessary political will.

Will we ever see Green Dam girl represent Amnesty International research?

The problem is this is a bit like launching a new soap powder on the market, packaged in a white box, without an advertising campaign and hidden on the bottom shelf of the supermarket aisle. OK, Amnesty International has moved on in the last couple of years from its traditional un-illustrated ‘white cover’ reports, but a couple of colour photos does not constitute a strategic use of visual media. Nor do the glossy pamphlets or other action related materials that have been developed in recent years. And that is what concerns me – why are we spending such energy and resources on documenting in text human rights abuses and then failing to think creatively and intelligently about the communication mechanisms to influence our audiences, and invest in the skills and tools to do this? I should say at this point that Amnesty International is not alone in this, and in fact much of what I have written above probably applies to most INGOs and NGOs, as well as IGOs like the UN (though the report card across the different humanitarian agencies varies considerably).

The second question is this;

‘When the world is so complex and three dimensional why are the photos and videos we use so narrowly focused and one dimensional?’

Now, equally this is hardly a criticism of Amnesty International, or the NGO world for that matter, as photojournalism has come in for the same criticism. The way the media and the development sector has pictured famine, particularly in the late 80’s and early 90’s is well documented and critiqued, particularly by academics like Professor of Cultural and Political Geography at Durham University (UK) David Campbell and POLIS Research Director, Prof. Lilie Choularki at the LSE (UK) to name but two. Under this criticism the visual pendulum swung from stick thin African women and children in scenes reminiscent of Biblical disasters, to smiling and happy women and children as the recipients of development assistance, usually standing round a water pump or newly constructed school. The positive images may be easier to stomach and go some way to counter what is perceived as ‘compassion fatigue’(or maybe more accurately ‘Lack of solution fatigue’) but they still fail in two key areas;

1) They are unable to illustrate the complexity of the lived experience of those they intended to help. As such they hide the fundamental causes of the problem and so distorted the limits of such interventions (Chouliaraki Post-humanitarianism: Humanitarian Communication: Beyond a Politics of Pity in International Journal of Cultural Studies Vol. 13 Nr. 1, Jan. 2010; 2).

2)Positive images are supposed to demonstrate the agency of the individuals they picture and present them with dignity, however the power relations between the subjects, photographers, NGOs, as well as in their own societies, remains unequal. The methods used fail to empower and facilitate the rights holders to speak for themselves.

Development NGOs are an easy target, and have a difficult job in telling the harsh reality of people's lives with a message of hope. Whether what they do has any substantial impact is another question, but the fact is that love or hate the photos they have generated substantial revenues over the decades.

If you think that these issues have been addressed since the 1990’s then I recommend you look again. Whole swathes of people with good intentions are blissfully unaware of the debate let alone close to integrating changes into their work. This is particularly the case in newly expanding NGO markets in countries such as South Korea and Japan who have been rather ignored in the rush of academic critiques focussing on European neo-colonialism. Dominated by Christian led organisations we see images that appear to fall into the same traps their Western counterparts did a couple of decades ago.

Its OK, South Korea didn't colonise anywhere...

And these are nice Christians, not like those Europeans...

The Japanese love poor people too.

It was with these two questions in mind I decided to dedicate one year to try and learn more about how we can do things better by looking at what others are already doing. This has involved speaking with journalists, photographers, NGO staff and academics, as well as meeting with rights claimants working with visual media. Through this I have built up this blog as a resource to help others with similar questions and spark debate. The good news is that there is some good stuff out there. However, the bad news is that there is a great deal of dross. Picking through it all has proved time consuming, especially at times when my internet connection has been far from speedy!

One problem I have found looking at the use of visual media in social activism is that it is so diverse – paintings & cartoons, maps & diagrams, promo videos & documentary films, photo realism & constructed images – it makes it difficult to know where to start. It also makes it difficult to compare different products as they have different audiences, objectives and delivery platforms. For example, short cinema ads tend to generalise and aim for high impact due to time constraints and an uncategorised audience – and as such can come in for more criticism.  Judging their impact is near impossible from outside an organisation and much of the on-line debate is amongst those working in the sector and based on opinion rather than an analysis of the audiences response. Often we may not like the product but this does not mean it does not achieve its aim.

I have also observed is that the use of visual media does not vary much depending on the issue – whether it is global warming, poverty, human rights or pro-cyclist campaigns – I have come across remarkably similar stuff. This can be seen easily by going to a couple of web pages and noting the layout and functions, as well as the type of photos used and videos presented. Although probably unrelated it is also interesting to note how NGOs that ostensibly deal with different issues are diversifying into other territories e.g. Oxfam talking about climate change and Amnesty International talking about poverty. Not without good reason, as the overlap of issues is obvious, however with NGOs increasingly challenging photojournalism as our primary source of this type of information one has to wonder whether the non-profit corporate agenda is balanced enough to monopolise such visual representation?

Oxfam's 'Gabura' website represented one of the best uses of video and testimony by an INGO in 2009. Looking at the impact of a cyclon on a community in Bangladesh it recorded their everyday lives as well as the actual cyclon as it hit.

With the challenges faced by print photojournalism it is interesting to see how INGOs in particular are now beginning to buy heavily in to multi-media, experimenting with web-based delivery systems using still, video and audio. These are often produced with photojournalists, or copy the aesthetic. And some of them are producing great stuff that will no doubt become the industry standard for years to come. Those that are doing things well have grasped that by combining multiple visual content (including the use of audio) you are able to paint a much more nuanced picture of the issue you wish to highlight, and bring the voices of the rights claimants directly to your target audience. In doing so they are able to give a more representative picture of the problem and solutions – but it this is not a default outcome of multimedia, it still requires the producers to aim to achieve this. It is in the area of multimedia that we see some of the best examples of the collaboration between photo-journalists and NGOs, such as Ed Kaski and Michael Watt’s work on the oil industry in the Niger Delta with OSI.

However, as noted above, the power relation gap between rights claimant (those impacted by the problem) and the professionals (NGOs and journalists/photographers/film makers) continues to raise the question of whose voice is being heard? Much has been made in regard to foreign photographers ‘parachuting in’ to developing countries to take photos and run, though many of the points raised equally apply to upper middle class urban professional photographers from said developing countries. It is a shame that more is not made of the environmental impact and the need to develop talent in the developing world (which can result in domestic news media using more and better images) than a rather tired anti-West critique that quiet frankly is increasingly shaky in our uni-polar geo-political landscape. What ever you make of these arguments, the response to such critiques has been a huge increase in participatory initiatives. Photography and video are being used to facilitate what some would call genuine and sustainable ‘voice’ within impacted communities. Although this move has been a response to the earlier criticism, particularly of development NGOs, the participatory methodology also has its critics. Some of these are valid, however it seems rather unfair to criticise a technique that is so diverse in its applications and so varied in its outcomes, rather than individual projects themselves. For me the key issues are how representative can most projects be given their size, and do they produce images that have greater impact than those of professionals? I think it is hard to generalise and much of the benefits of participatory methodologies in visual media seem restricted to the participants themselves rather than as wider advocacy campaigns.

In my view it makes sense that such projects should be combined with professionals’ work, and where appropriate plugged into a ‘virtuous communication chain’ that allows the relevant people to produce the right content and use their local specifics to access those decision makers who can make a difference. What you can end up with are community video units – citizen media – in the slums of Mumbai working with local NGOs lobbying their domestic government representatives, and providing content to INGOs who have wider media and government access at the international level. Link this up to individual activists amongst the public, who can organise off-line activities using social networking tools, feeding back digital content to the rights claimants as well as using this as a lobbying tool itself.

The initiatives I have touched on above mainly mark positive progress and need more investment to develop them further. They need a long term time frame that appreciates that we do not just feed audiences one dimensional material that is easily digested for quick wins but take time to inform them of what they may not be aware of and help them understand it. This also means developing the right delivery systems for your hard won facts and figures. There needs to be more appreciation that all our communications are between human beings, with increasing time constraints, that respond better when provided with visual context. With decision makers bombarded with an increasing number of reports and papers by lobbyists those who can provide facts and messages in the most effective way will get noticed. The 30 page report may still be necessary if detailed questions arise but if a picture says a thousand words and can be read in seconds this is the more evolved communication medium for first engagement in a time-poor world. Tell me the story of failures in the justice system in Mexico, but give me real peoples’ lives on the screen at the lobbying meeting to show me what it means in practice. Or tell me about the disproportionate use of force by the Indian police in Kashmir, but contextualise it for me by showing it taking place on the ground shot on mobile phones by activists.

From camera phone to Congress. Footage shot by 'cyber activists' in Indian controlled Kashmir was used in lobbying at the US Congress.

While there are reasons to be positive about many of these developments I have several concerns. The use of stereotypical imagery and grand distortions are not hard to find, in organisations that quite frankly should know better.

The increasingly corporate presentation of INGO’s work, although understandable, presents both opportunities and challenges. The professionalisation of NGOs in many parts of the world is aimed at raising effectiveness and accountability, but also looks to carve out an identity in an increasingly competitive market to capture funding, public engagement and political influence. This means it is important how they present themselves to those who support them, and particularly how they look to mobilise them. Prof. Chaularaki of LSE (UK) has identified this new approach as ‘post-humanitarian communication’. She claims that although NGOs are still relying on images to stir the emotions of guilt, indignation, empathy and gratitude (as they did in the 80’s and 90’s), they are doing so now in a way not to inspire immediate action but as ‘objects of contemplation to be reflected on’. I would sum this up as ‘This is how it is. Do you want to change it? If so click here’. Although I am not convinced this is a wholly new phenomenon it recognises that a large segment of people in wealthy industrialised societies engage in activism increasingly as isolated individuals (predominantly on-line). They are relatively savvy about world events, possibly having travelled in the industrialising world, and digested satellite news channels at least enough to not be easily shocked into action. The information they hold may be far from complete (though it is worth noting that via the digital democratisation of information they have a great choice of sources to choose from) but they don’t want to be manipulated, instead wanting facts and solutions. It may also be worth noting that although NGOs command high trust levels in many Western states, as apposed to politicians and corporations, people may be viewing information far more as opinion or at least with selective emphasis, and as such choose to ‘buy’ an argument or position based on world view or life style choices rather than wholly on the basis of objective facts.

The Amnesty International (Switzerland) poster campaign 'Not Here But Now' is one of the examples of post humanitarian communication referenced by Prof. Choularaki.

If all this is true – and I am speculating based on experience – then this ‘post-humanitarian communication’ is a useful way to mobilize this audience. It links with their way of thinking and the way they wish to be involved – direct debit donation or on-line action. It also looks to communicate using corporate style advertising, heavily reliant on constructed images (rather than the old NGO aesthetic of photo-realism), with NGOs increasing use of commercial advertising agencies who are very good (most of the time) at producing sophisticated products. As such a 30 some-thing in Hong Kong can sit down in a wifi café with their laptop, view a multimedia presentation on the Australian government’s response to Sri Lankan asylum seekers, take action, and then move on to buy the latest series of ‘Heroes‘ off iTunes. If this shows a slight emotional disengagement does it provide evidence of so-called ‘compassion fatigue’ or reflect changes in how we operate in a digitally enabled world? Is the post-humanitarian ‘take it or leave it’ message an attempt to ratchet back the emotional coercion of previous engagement in order to persuade an audience increasingly questioning about the impact (though not the intentions) of INGOs? Or are we seeing activism as entertainment, consumed as part of my identity and fun? This may seem at odds with how we view such serious issues but a quick look at initiatives by ING tells a different story.

If this type of communication and forms of engagement are the easiest ways to get people involved does this reflect a failure in our use of visual media? Is it the consequence of past stereotyping and emotional manipulation, or purely a reflection of a more cynical post-modern aesthetic filtering from the corporate to non-profit world? And what are the consequences for impact on the issues to be addressed? Does ease of action – through increasingly gimmicky websites, so-called ‘light touch’ activism (or as someone recently termed it ‘slacktivism’) involving low levels of knowledge and time – have as much value as committed long term engagement? Or are such actions digital referenda for politicians to take note of?

In addressing the low levels of commitment individuals are willing to dedicate towards helping others, it raises questions of the value of each of these individual contributions. The ease of clicking a mouse to sign a petition is not lost on politicians, and large numbers are necessary to get their attention. And the fact remains that many political systems remain impervious to such tactics in regards to listening to the views of an international constituency who they do not need to heed. Rather than calling on the skills of those willing to make a larger commitment NGOs clamour to bring in low value numbers. It strikes me that greater investment in building a community willing to share skills with the rights claimants, by offering to help edit videos on-line, translate, subtitle, develop photo blogs, set up proxy servers, take part in training etc. would bring greater rewards in the long run. Is another photo wall made up of 10,000 images submitted by individuals at Copenhagen going to make the difference that is needed regarding climate change? Or does a website filled with one liners by people around the world really represent ‘voice’?

I am reliably informed that the 'Every Human Has Rights' campaign initially had the lofty ambition to generate 1 billion pledges to the UDHR. The ticker that was prominent on the site was moved somewhere more hidden (now clocking in at just over 50,000) when the response was so poor. Maybe the coordinating group shouldn't have given themselves the pretentious name of 'The Elders'?

There are those trying to work in a more substantial way, especially smaller, specialised NGOs, who are looking to act as philanthropists rather than corporations. Instead of running their own campaigns, corporately presented with messaging tightly controlled, they look to help community level groups by providing resources, including training, equipment and platforms. Rather than moving toward a corporatisation of NGOs, as many large INGOs have done over the last ten years, we see a move that blurs the boundaries between organisations and individuals, with skills, knowledge and materials being shared. The initiative by A Developing Story site for NGOs to submit materials under a Creative Commons licence represents one such investment, as well as video platforms like the WITNESS HUB, and Rising Voices.

As 2009 comes to an end although I have not managed to answer my two initial questions I feel I have managed to map the terrain enough to know which direction I think we should be heading. I have seen separate initiatives that if combined could represent effective and credible delivery systems for advocacy, bringing together hard copy research with digital evidence and stories. Some of these include substantial participation by the rights claimants and offer genuine opportunities for them to tell their stories, not just as a one off but consistently in the future. I have also come across examples of work that brings together different media content to paint a more complex and compelling story that engages its audience for a longer sustainable ride rather than to jolt them into action. It is refreshing to see peoples’ lives told in complex shades of grey as in a novel rather than the black and white of international legal conventions.

'Hope: Living & Loving with HIV in Jamaica' combined photography, video, music and poetry for compelling story telling. For once it really felt like the people were the heart of the story rather than the issues or the campaign.

The Rights Exposure Project will continue to share what is good and bad in the world of visual media for social activism. The blog relies heavily on the input of others and looks to spark debate. As such I want to offer my heartfelt thanks to all those who have contributed in some way through out 2009, and hope to see you on the blog in 2010. I shall also be the contributing editor for human rights on a new site, ‘A Developing Story’ so please check it out.

I know there are enough like-minded people out there who care about how we picture these important issues and are keen to find ways to use these images to have the greatest impact. I look forward to learning more about your work.

Best

Rob