CURIOUS REBEL

The money, social change, and judging the book by its cover

If Impact was a person, she would be running around with Harry Potter’s Cloak of Invisibility. Anyone who is working for social change is chasing her but of course she’s hard to find. Could this elusive Siren be a mirage of sorts?

I recently wrote about investing in arts, design, and culture to revitalize struggling cities. It is obviously a complex topic and my casual analysis doesn’t do it justice nor provide a more pragmatic view to contrast my more theoretical take on the matter. But after scouring the blogosphere for concrete examples, this failed gem caught my attention. 

The failure of PlayPumps should be a hard lesson for the lack of foresight, as one commenter explained, “…the blind leading the blind.” If a former marketer spearheading a solution to the global water crisis wasn’t enough to sound the alarm, what’s more embarrassing is the media role in aligning people (and money) toward a failed cause. 

Maybe I’m being too harsh as a mere observer but we shouldn’t be surprised at big media’s ability to make something go viral and appear alluring - at the expense of the issue’s complexities. I even admit that joyful children spinning on the pump wheel is irresistible and makes me want to pull out my wallet. And I don’t think the pump was a failure in every place. 

But the scarier scenario is social media and networked technologies’ clout in influencing and aligning people toward misguided projects. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a proponent of social media and see a huge potential in empowering communities to take action. But the outcome of PlayPumps should become a cautionary tale on media’s ability to perpetuate a myopic movement. 

The usual relationship between donors and causes isn’t helping either. The key word is impact. How do you measure social impact? Ironically, is the focus on measuring impact also a detriment to actually producing impact? 

When I donate money toward a cause I deeply care about, I want the most bang for my buck. I want my dollar stretched to the max and help as many people as possible. This isn’t an exception for other donors who give many times what I could give. But are the acts of hitting goals, concentration on measuring and producing social impact, and scaling the organizations contribute to unsustainable social change?

Even if you do everything right - like using quadruple-ly-folded sari cloth to reduce the number of people sickened by cholera - the solution still might be unsustainable.  In the sari cloth example, the solution was, “cheap, simple, and used components that were readily available to its target population” according to the author but the solution lacked longevity. It lacked a more complete understanding of how new behaviors would be assimilated into the community, a solid grassroots support and dedicated and trusted leaders who would advocate the new solution.

Thus the dilemma: we need to spread the word to rally people toward a cause but we need to demonstrate its impact while avoid being short-sighted. Naturally, we’re drawn to charismatic, visionary leaders who are chasing impact and are able to execute projects well. But are we chasing the wrong impact? Are we measuring the wrong things? How can we balance media’s perspectives with what’s really happening on the ground? How can donors be more informed instead of being duped by “revolutionary” solutions?

Any comments or insights?