In
class, Professor Shirk presented us with two quotes regarding NGOs, one in
support being, “NGOs appear to be the key actors in moving societies away from
trends of environmental degradation and toward sustainable economies” (Princen
and Finger 1994). The other being against, or having very little faith, “the
environment is not going to be saved by environmentalists. Environmentalists do
not hold the levers of economic power” (Maurice Strong, UNCED Secretary
General). I think there is truth in both of these statements. NGOs can help to
change the behaviors of a society, but also, they are not the members of the
government with economic power. Their power does not come from a base of money,
but rather reshaping the norms of a society.
NGOs
focus in on issues that the government isn’t helping on, and impact people on a
daily basis from poverty to human rights. Because of this, they tend to have
support from the people who are actually affected, to those who are in support
of such issues. For example, whenever there is any kind of natural disaster
where the Red Cross can step in and help, there are always commercials with
various celebrities asking people to help. Here the Red Cross gains support
from those impacted, the celebrities endorsing them, and the viewers of the
commercial who decide to then donate or do what they can to help.
NGOs
often resort to shady tactics to gain support, but often times end up being
successful in changing behaviors that negatively impact the environment.
Framing is a type of information politics tactic that they use, as we saw in
the whaling pamphlet from lecture 7, that it can take 30 minutes to kill a
whale, but only 3 minutes to read the pamphlet and ultimately save the whale.
Whenever I see a Greenpeace member they always ask “do you have a minutes to
help save the environment,” because even though they know a majority of the
people they ask aren’t going to talk to them, they know that particular framing
of the question is going to make people feel guilty when they respond with “no,”
and is likely to make them think twice.
Another
example of framing could be the term “cage-free” on cartons of eggs. If someone
is looking at eggs and takes a second to read the cartons before picking one up
and sees that, they are definitely more likely to pick up cage free as opposed
to the other ones who must mean the chickens are locked up in cages. This sort
of guilt tripping pushes people into making different decisions, like in this
case, with eggs. Then, the demand for cage-free eggs increases and becomes a
more popular seller, which could mean that NGOs do have some economic power,
but that is not their basis. They derive their power by changing societal norms
from ones that may be harmful to the environment, to those that are not
harmful, or at least are less harmful.
PETA also uses this type of guilting people into doing
the “right” thing when they distribute pamphlets right outside of the student
union on UMD campus. They are using information politics in hopes of persuading
students away from eating meat. These pamphlets are filled with disturbing
images of animals in slaughterhouses and big meat packing plants being tortured
and abused for human consumption. These dramatic images are used to try and get
students to stop eating meat and supporting those industries.
This
can relate back to our second lecture and the constructivism theory of
international relations. This is based on social constructions, norms, and that
“institutions and organizations provide governance without government” (lecture
2). NGOs use their variety of tactics to shape the social constructions and
norms to be beneficial to the environment and due to their influence, provide
governance. Even if their power does not derive from that of money, it does not mean that environmentalists will not help save the environment. These pressures NGOs place on society to save the environment and make better decisions absolutely make a difference, even if only a small one in certain cases.
You mention in the first paragraph and the last that NGOs do not gain power from a monetary base. However, do you think that NGOs would be as successful without large budgets and lots of donations? Obviously they would also not be successful without support from society, but they also need money to put these commercials online, hire staff, advertise, etc.
ReplyDeleteAlso, really interesting point about the way Greenpeace phrases their questions; you're absolutely right that it makes me feel guilty to say no (although I think some of the guilt comes from a feeling of not supporting the environment if I don't talk to Greenpeace). And I always buy cage-free eggs!
Yes, you're absolutely right, Ella. NGOs would not be able to gain traction without money from donations and other sources. The point I was making was that the government main source of power and influence is monetary, while NGOs use shaping social norms (as opposed to a financial motivation) to influence individuals. Does that make sense?
ReplyDeleteYes, I always feel guilty turning down those organizations out asking people for donations on the street when they ask their questions in that manner. I've actually ended up donating to the HRC because of feeling guilty, and although I do support them, I'm also a broke college student so it's not super easy for me to donate monthly. And let me tell you, it is extremely difficult and complicated to terminate your monthly contribution.
Ivy, do you think that the government isn't using social norms to make changes? I know in Law and Society we talked about whether people comply with the law because it is socially the acceptable thing to do or if it was the threat of possible repercussions. This made me really think, do we follow laws because it's making a social impact by creating a law? So I think that while the government first and foremost has money, I think that especially in countries like the US (who are supposedly democracies who listen to their constituencies), the changes being made are socially impactful as well.
ReplyDelete