Let’s start with the latter.
A charity recently told me that, just because they had committed to do
something, it didn’t actually mean they would do it. This is an organisation
whose central working methodology is based on the importance of people making authentic
commitments in their life. Though the
method, I now realise, was not meant to be applied to the organisation itself.
It is true that life requires a
pragmatic approach, but pragmatism only works if it is grounded on something –
if it comes from somewhere. Similarly, the
vision and purpose of charities ‘should’ be grounded in a set of values that
are more real and authentic to what they do than the whims of opportunity find
people working in. But that is a
rare thing.
It is almost as
though the very landscape charities work through – the uncertainty of survival,
the dream of the pot of gold if only people could find out about their work,
the need to be competitive with one’s own partners – ends up turning charities
into a person who is rather egocentric
with an unstable set of behaviour patterns.
A celebrity, perhaps? Indeed, the
celebrity of charity - if that is what we can call it - is all around us,
jangling buckets and clipboards on the streets, promoting disadvantage in
adverts, being the self-serving expert in media interviews, and keeping
whatever brand in our minds through the latest happening. It’s as though the UK has been turned into a
Big Brother show for charities to outdo each other, all in the desperate game
of increased ratings and approval linked to a worthwhile cause that undermines
itself. They all think they have the
right answer; they often think they have a better answer to someone else; they
sometimes think they don’t know what the real answer is because they are too
busy trying to deliver what they thought was the answer but is only part of the
solution and sometimes the problem.
What rarely happens is that anyone stands back from the absurdity of
organisations competing against each other, with no effective systems to work
together, and with little understanding of the big picture, to say: what is it
that we are meant to be doing, how should we go about doing it, and is the fact
that we are too busy and too lost in our own brands and commitments a sign of
how far charity is lost from the social purpose to make this a better world in
the future - not just for the pragmatists of now?
Then there is aspiration. The Conservatives have come out of
the closet at last, as the party of ‘the aspiration nation’. It’s like an
episode of Stars in their Eyes, where suddenly Cameron transforms himself into whoever
was the last Prime Mistaker to promise the same thing (see ‘the politics of
aspiration for all’ Blair, 2005; or ‘the party of aspiration’ Brown, 2010). It
is of course the choco-ration nation he is referring to. The choco-ration
principle is found in George Orwell’s 1984, and refers to the media
manipulation that can make a nation of people celebrate that choco rations are
going up when they are actually going down.
So it is with aspiration. The ‘aspiration nation’ removes investment
from young people struggling to access further education, and kicks them off
the ladder (the withdrawal of EMA), but celebrates all this as part of a fairer
approach at a time of economic stress whilst companies such as Facebook maximise earnings (175m) by not paying proper
taxes (238k). The dots don’t join up,
but then the ‘aspiration nation’ is like a dot-to-dot puzzle that keeps you
occupied in the hope it might turn into a shape until the next election wipes
the page clean of promises. That’s not a nation many would wish to aspire to.
Finally, we have inspiration. This week, we have been told that an English
football player who used racially abusive language is still an ‘ inspiration’,
and that an American cyclist who led the most manipulative drug taking regime
probably of any sport in history and continues to deny his guilt is still
‘inspirational’ because of his charity work and worthy of his Nike
sponsorship. There are some interesting
lessons to be had here about how we value things. The first story was actually
a back page headline based on an interview with a fellow player – regardless of
the personal opinion, how on earth was this deemed an appropriate headline? Are
we meant to sleep better knowing that someone who racially abused another
person – and was meant to be a role model as England captain – is also a guy of
inspiration to his teammates? Apparently
so. That’s all it takes to decontaminate a brand in the world of football,
where money is the only value in town.
The second story is even more absurd, given the scale of deceit. How on
earth can someone who has cheated success with such disdain have any claim as
an authentic icon for beating cancer?
Nike claims its brand is about ‘inspiration and innovation for every
athlete in the world’. Is the innovation they promote about cheating? Is the ‘inspiration’ they promote about how
to win at any cost?
Like a distorting nightmare, Armstrong is the mirror image
of the charity that does not live the way it tries to work; the mirror image of
the Government that does not do what they say; the mirror image of a world that
does not know how to be authentic; the mirror image of the consequence that always catches up with us in the end. The icon of Orwell's 'doublethink'.
Nike’s strapline is ‘Just do it’. But our survival as human beings is about
doing it properly, doing it truthfully, thinking more than just 'I'. Isn’t it time we
looked in the mirror and did ourselves some justice? Or, to quote another
strapline, ‘Can’t Beat the Real Thing’...
No comments:
Post a Comment