The Ends Justify the Means

Most people are familiar with the concept of consequentialism, where the consequences of one's conduct are more important than the rightness or wrongness of the conduct. We often phrase it as "the ends justify the means," or, "As long as it turns out well, it doesn't matter what measures I had to take to get there." These justifications are generally employed in an attempt to excuse poor or immoral behavior. I would venture to say that the majority of people would agree living according to this concept is unpredictable, unreliable and generally harmful.

However, there are those who make reckless decisions and engage in irresponsible activity as an attempt to reach their desired outcome faster and more easily. Sometimes these decisions are the best ones even with the risks involved; I'm not here to say it's a black-and-white issue or even to suggest that we always have the option of “safe” measures attached to tried-and-true results. We don't. But I do want to talk about the instances where we should know better, and do better.

Remember back in May when Newsweek ran that article about Somaly Mam fabricating parts of her story? Shortly thereafter she resigned from her leadership role with the Somaly Mam Foundation (SMF), but the board members were adamant that their work would continue on, serving the girls they had rescued from trafficking, and those they would rescue in the future. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case. SMF ceased their current projects and shut their doors on September 30, as announced in an official statement two weeks ago.

My biggest question brought up by this news is, what will happen to the girls and women SMF served? These are vulnerable individuals who need specific care, attention and services, and now a major provider for these needs has permanently closed.

When Somaly encouraged narratives that lacked truth, I do not think she was trying to be cruel. I think she wanted the spotlight and the accolades that come with a story of overcoming life's brutality. I also believe she knew donors respond more hastily and with bigger checks when they're met with such inspiration. And I don't doubt she truly wanted to make a positive difference in the world. However, her false tale only carried her so far. She was granted the spotlight and the accolades. She was handed large checks to fund her work. She was featured in a high-profile documentary. She did get to make a difference. But her end in no way justifies her means.

With the revelation of Somaly's falsehoods and her subsequent resignation, the reputation of the entire counter-trafficking sector has been called into question. Donors are more wary of supporting programs. SMF has had to cease operations. One person's irresponsible means could very well cause widespread "ends" prematurely. How do organizations convince supporters they are legitimate? The girls SMF was tending to – where do they go now? Initially, Somaly was able to make beneficial waves. She brought some awareness to an important cause. She attracted funding to help provide necessary services. But where is all of that now? It's been diminished to a moment's worth of positive change, shrouded in the shadow of a lie. Was her time of glory worth the cost?

We can't only focus on the short term effects of our actions. We have to realize that there are long term outcomes to be considered, too, and weigh those as part of our decision-making process. We have to be aware of the implications of our choices, not just for ourselves but also for others who they may touch. I can make up a compelling story to sell an idea and cultivate compassion for my cause, but I'm going to be found out. Maybe not immediately, but eventually, and the fallout may well outweigh any good I'd initially accomplished. (Especially with the accessibility of information via the internet. The truth can't hide, and there is always somebody looking to uncover it.)

We can do better. Let's be more conscientious in our pursuits. Let's be careful with our methods. Let's be mindful of both the probable and possible effects of our actions. Let's be honest.

Telling Better Stories: Where "Compassion Campaigns" Fail

Have you ever faced the challenge of summarizing a very complex issue in a succinct yet engaging manner? I have. When I was visiting home recently, I was asked about my work in counter-trafficking and what is it that I do.  I always appreciate these moments and try to share information on human trafficking and Chab Dai's work in raising the standards of care for vulnerable people and building collaboration. I can think of many examples, such as our support team working on cases of forced marriage in China, the labor cases on Thai fishing boats or the thousands of villagers and community leaders in Cambodia that are now educated on safe migration, human trafficking and/or parenting skills. But these opportunities are also challenging as I try to describe what I've been working on for the past couple of years; a process that has been so challenging and precious that it hard to put into words, let alone a 30 second response.

I found it hard to share these stories in a way that sums up the complexity of these issues in a dignified and non-sensationalist manner. And the more I talk with my peers and colleagues about the reasons for this struggle, the more I realize that others in the field are facing the same challenges. Rachel Kurzyp, the Communications Director at WhyDev, wrote in her blog post, NGOs Need to Tell Better Stories, "When I re-tell these stories and others, I feel conflicted. I want the individuals within the stories to be respected and have dignity. I don’t want them to be viewed as helpless and weak. I try to make sense of their situation the best way I can. But I know the supporters and donors don’t like to read stories without happy endings or pieces that question the world’s inequality and their part in it."

There is almost always an expectation to hear an emotionally charged story with a dramatic rescue and heroic finish. A call to action usually comes through heart-wrenching images such as a powerless woman in a prison cell or a child picking up rubbish at a garbage dump. However, such stories often fall into a narrative of saviors and victims, glorifying images of rescuers during brothel raids while other seemingly more mundane, but equally important, actions go unnoticed. This kind of "compassion" marketing oversimplifies and dilutes the stories of individuals who live in these very complex sets of circumstances.

A proven risk of these "compassion" marketing campaigns is that they end up hurting the very people they set out to help. Many of the people we see in the images and we hear telling their stories end up being re-traumatized from the constant re-living of their experiences or through the stigma they face in their communities if their stories leak out. Another risk of such marketing is that once donors get tired of the same story, they move on to a new one, resulting in a loss of funding that forces projects and cases to close down. 

Many quick-fix campaigns lack a more holistic and long-term solution. They may even misidentify the underlining problems. Even though donations to these programs are given in good faith, the solutions they support in the long run might be creating more dependency rather than true empowerment.

And at the end of the day, the individuals and communities we advocate with and for are the ones who will ultimately either benefit or be deprived.

Still, there are good examples of dignified story-telling and community engagement. Contrary to the scenarios unpacked above, there are organizations and individuals who are conscious of the complexities of working alongside those who are vulnerable. More often than not, these programs run quietly and steadily with the dedication of a team of committed staff and volunteers. I have friends and colleagues who work very hard to bring change to their communities. This gives me hope. Hope that there are good initiatives to be part of with those that are informed by grassroots strategies and can galvanize a community of well-informed people who are committed to a cause that is sustainable, and one that promotes long term engagement and commitment to maintaining the dignity of the very population they serve.

How the Media Causes Harm

Today, there are numerous sources to acquire your news, from newspapers, magazines, and television to online media and social platforms. With the fierce competition between media outlets, there is a frenzy to provide up-to-date and exciting coverage to maintain and increase viewership. Media coverage is often the only way we receive information about different cultures, city problems, and global issues and have a large impact on how we are perceiving the world around us. Depending on what the media chooses to show us, it can often encourage extreme emotions that can influence us to love and immortalize a person and/or condemn others and create animosity.

Media events such as the kidnappings by Boko Haram, the rise and fall of Somaly Mam, and the CNN Freedom Project, we see every sliver of information related to these situations splashed everywhere in our media outlets. Of course, this only happens for a few days/weeks, until something else grabs national attention.  

When a single event is in the spotlight, as was with the fall of Somaly Mam, it can cause a backlash.  No one can argue Somaly Mam brought worldwide exposure to human trafficking. However, her swift rise to the spotlight and the vicious portrayal of her downfall may have caused long-lasting damage to many anti-human trafficking organizations that do right by the individuals who are trapped in this vicious industry. Many organizations around the world may now have to go through additional levels of investigation before they are given funds, which will delay their programs. 

There will always be an abundance of news, but it is important not to get caught up in this whirlwind of media coverage because the media influences how we see see each other and the world, sometimes negatively. Having our views shaped by the media can change them in ways we may not have wanted. We may view organizations and individuals through new lenses that have vilified or glamorized another organization or individual. So what can we do?  Avoid the media? Of course not.  But tread lightly and never just accept what lies before you. Consider it your duty to look deeper and analyze how your thoughts and words are affected by the way the media presents the world around us. Ask yourself why you are being called to action.  Why a certain photograph is being used. How will vilifying one person who is the face of anti- sex trafficking affect others. Ask yourself questions and look deeper to what is the real message that is being conveyed.  

You may be surprised to find the answer.