What is Poverty Porn, and why is it such a problem? But more importantly… how can we be better? How can we still achieve charitable goals without objectifying suffering?
South Africa (18 August 2020) – Poverty porn, also known as development porn, famine porn, or stereotype porn, has been defined as “any type of media, be it written, photographed or filmed, which exploits the poor’s condition in order to generate the necessary sympathy for selling newspapers, increasing charitable donations, or support for a given cause” as defined by Wikipedia.
It also suggests that the viewer of the exploited protagonists is motivated by the gratification of base instincts. It is also a term of criticism applied to films that objectify people in poverty for the sake of entertaining a privileged audience.
“But can we all please agree to stop Poverty Porn… aka sharing images of poor people receiving aid on your social media?
I’m upset by what I’m seeing going on within well-meaning circles that has devolved into revolting behaviour. These are my personal thoughts, and in no way connected to any NGOs or individuals I work with.
I hope that this discussion will not drive aid away from people who need it, which is our primary concern. Please keep doing the good work you do, but please also find another way to inspire others to get involved.”
The concept of poverty porn was first introduced in the 1980s, a “golden age of charity campaigns.” Charity campaigns during this period made use of hard-hitting images such as pictures of malnourished children with flies in their eyes. This quickly became a trend and there were several notable campaigns such as Live Aid. Though some of these campaigns were successful in raising money for charity (over $150 million to help combat famine), some observers criticised the approach, claiming it oversimplified chronic poverty; this apparent sensationalism was dubbed by critics as “poverty porn.”
In the 1980s the media used what some believed to be inappropriate use of children in poverty. However, towards the end of this era more positive images emerged to tell their stories, although, in recent years it has been noticed that the disturbing images are being highlighted once more.
The term “poverty porn” itself was introduced years later. One of the earliest examples was the review of the film Angela’s Ashes (1999) published in the January 2000 edition of the e-newsletter Need to Know. In this review, the term was not defined but was used to describe the film’s depiction of poverty as a “ponderous vomit-packed poverty porn”.
Perspective is everything and even though people become very polarised when discussing poverty porn – especially those who want to do good by taking photos – those at the receiving end have a very different outlook, one that we have to be cognizant of.
“It’s been so triggering seeing these little faces. It brings back memories of my childhood that I want or try hard to forget and that’s the shame that poverty brings. As if it’s “my fault, ” maybe if I am a better child and work harder people won’t make me beg for food or make me walk miles to get food or heaven forbid, smile for the camera and sing songs of praise and thanks before I can get to the food. The helplessness and shame and rage inside me because people were telling me to smile, to say thank you, made me often want to take my skinny little self and walk home hungry. Please! Just enough! Because when those pictures went up at community halls or schools then came the bullying and the teasing because my mom, who worked extremely hard, “could not afford” to feed us. It felt like a circus and I was the obedient animal. I just can’t!!! – a South African adult who had to deal with being used for poverty porn as a child.
Considerations from a legal standpoint:
- All children have a common-law right to privacy.
- Minor children are seen as vulnerable individuals and should be afforded special protection, as they cannot protect themselves.
- The Constitution of South Africa, which promotes the right to privacy.
According to Candice Le Sueur Fisher, a Psychologist and thought leader in Business and Information Ethics and Chyrisse Smith, a practising lawyer and family law specialist says that the Children’s Act does not regulate the sharing or publication of photos of minor children, but it clearly states that the best interest of minor children is always of paramount importance, specifically so when considering the infringement of the child’s privacy.
“South African law is clear that when publication occurs every person who is directly or indirectly responsible for the publication thereof can be held legally liable for it. The publication is making content available to another in any form – orally or in writing.
The Journalism Act states that all photos and visual imagery must accurately display and not sensationalise the circumstances of the minor child.”
Children, like all of us, have a right to the protection of our personal information and how our personal information is used. The omission of seeking proper consent from parents of minor children could have severe. consequences including fines, imprisonment, and reputational damage.
So here are 10 reasons to stop with Poverty Porn!
1. Even if people/parents of children consent to you shoving a camera in their face, they are not really in a position to exercise free will as they cannot risk angering their “patron.”
You are not equals. Acknowledge this and be respectful of boundaries they may not feel powerful enough to put up.
2. Neither vulnerable parties nor children understand the ramifications of consent.
Digital photos can spread the globe and be used in a variety of illegal unsavoury ways without either the subject’s or poster’s permission.
3. Following on, you are exposing vulnerable people to predation, which is the worst.
Trafficking sees us lose 30000 children a year in SA to slave labour and sexual exploitation. Less than 1% are ever recovered. Because they are from impoverished communities, it never makes headlines.
Poverty porn exposes and abandons people after removing their anonymity; they are more vulnerable than ever. They are ripe for grooming because they have been pre-targeted as needing. This is not only dehumanising behaviour; it is endangering.
4. It misrepresents poverty, which is a result of both individual and systemic problems.
It is not only personal circumstances but the social and justice systems in place that either work to empower the poor or perpetuate their condition. Poverty porn makes a complex human experience understandable, consumable and easily treatable. It is not – we need to draw attention to the systems that create and perpetuate it, and take responsibility / acknowledge the historical damage of Apartheid to truly correct it.
5. Poverty porn leads to charity, not activism and donors, not advocates.
It fails to produce both a deeper understanding of the issue of poverty and the necessary structural changes that must occur to effectively address it. Instead, poverty porn says that material resources are the problem and the solution, where poverty can be addressed through a simple phone call or monthly donation.
To be clear, this kind of giving has the potential to make significant impacts once in the hands of organisations that address poverty in a sustainable way. However, it perpetuates dangerous ideologies along the way that do more harm than good. It tells the poor that they are helpless beneficiaries, and it tells financially secure donors that they are the saviours. In this dynamic, donors are told that they are the only ones with the ability to make a difference. Nothing is said about what it would look like to empower the poor and walk alongside them to help them realise their inherent ability to be the change agents in their own communities. Look at the pictures for a commonality here…
“The history of the world’s effort to fight severe poverty is largely a story of seeing what’s obvious and simple and trying to do something about it, and in the process, discovering the hidden and complex realities of poverty, and then trying to re-engineer solutions that better fit those realities.” (The Locust Effect)
6. It misrepresents the poor: poverty is not just dirt and rags and helplessness, but in reality has many facets and no simple solution.
Poverty doesn’t only look like a starving child – it is multi-faceted and should be depicted more honestly. Audiences define poverty by physical suffering and a lack of material resources, while the poor define their condition psychologically and emotionally. They use words like shame, inferiority, powerlessness, humiliation, fear, hopelessness, depression, social isolation and voicelessness (World Bank, 1990). Mental health ramifications are massive, but we shy away from them because it doesn’t fit the images we are primed for. So people struggle to get mental healthcare as it is seen as a luxury (when in reality if they could get it, they could be part of their own poverty solution).
7. Poverty porn deceives the helper, and the helped, empowering the wrong person.
It does this in two ways:
Firstly it tells donors that because of their position in society, and because of their resources, they have the ability to be the saviours in vulnerable communities which they probably know NOTHING about. It fails to awaken white people to the mutual need for economic and educational transformation and instead perpetuates dangerous paternalism.
Second, poverty porn debilitates the helped by objectifying them, defining them by their suffering and stripping them of the vital components of all human life – agency, autonomy, and unlimited potential. We primed the to believe they are helpless, dependent on the support of the wealthy for survival. And we become what we are told, which is why poverty is almost impossible to escape.
Truly helping the poor means empowering them to transform their own communities, even admitting our own inadequacy and ignorance in understanding the true nature of poverty. World Relief CEO Stephan Bauman says “Seeking ways to allow the poor to become helpers or actors in their own community change represents the difference between a program and a movement.”
8. The hard part is that poverty porn works.
It is profitable. NGO marketing and communications teams produce these images because they have been proven effective in studies. At the end of the day, poverty porn is the result of well-meaning organisations raising money for their programs.
But this raises an important question: is the profitability of poverty porn worth the perpetuation of false ideologies and stereotypes because we are alleviating it slightly in the short term?
Simply, no.
While this may sound counterintuitive to the capitalist nature of Western culture, it’s really not because a SUSTAINABLE change in poor communities is more than the sum of financial donations and praise. If we want to truly transform lives, so they are economically and socially just, we have to create avenues for their voices to be heard and not impose our “white saviour” constructs and solutions on them. They must be part of their own solution, which involves retaining their agency and identity.
9. Poverty porn celebrates the wrong person.
It objectifies suffering for the praise of the poster. When used by individuals, it is shining a spotlight on yourself for ego, not love.
10. How would you feel if someone did it to you?
Don’t do it.
by 