An excerpt from Milan Kundera's “The Unbearable Likeness of Being”

18

Something was in the air. People were slowing down and looking back.

The American actress, who had ended up in the rear, could no longer stand the disgrace of it and, determined to take the offensive, was sprinting to the head of the parade. It was as if a runner in a five-kilometer race, who had been saving his strength by hanging back with the pack, had suddenly sprung forward and started overtaking his opponents one by one.

The men stepped back with embarrassed smiles, not wishing to spoil the famous runner's bid for victory, but the women yelled, “Get back in line! This is no star parade!”

Undaunted, the actress pushed on, a suite of five photographers and two cameramen in tow.

Suddenly a Frenchwoman, a professor of linguistics, grabbed the actress by the wrist and said (in terrible-sounding English), “This is a parade for doctors who have come to care for mortally ill Cambodians, not a publicity stunt for movie stars!”

The actress's wrist was locked in the linguistics professor's grip; she could do nothing to pry it loose. “What the hell do you think you're doing?” she said (in perfect English). “I've been in a hundred parades like this! You won't get anywhere without stars! It's our job! Our moral obligation!”

“Merde!” said the linguistics professor (in perfect French).

The American actress understood and burst into tears.

“Hold it, please,” a cameraman called out and knelt at her feet. The actress gave a long look into his lens, the tears flowing down her cheeks.

19

When at last the linguistics professor let go of the American actress's wrist, the German pop singer with the black beard and white flag called out her name.

The American actress had never heard of him, but after being humiliated she was more receptive to sympathy than usual and ran over to him. The singer switched the pole to his left hand and put his right arm around her shoulder.

They were immediately surrounded by new photographers and cameramen. A well-known American photographer, having trouble squeezing both their faces and the flag into his viewfinder because the pole was so long, moved back a few steps into the ricefield. And so it happened that he stepped on a mine. An explosion ran out, and his body, ripped to pieces, went flying through the air, raining a shower of blood on the European intellectuals.

The singer and the actress were horrified and could not budge. They lifted their eyes to the flag. It was spattered with blood. Once more they were horrified. Then they timidly ventured a few more looks upward and began to smile slightly. They were filled with a strange pride, a pride they had never known before: the flag they were carrying had been consecrated by blood. Once more they joined the march.

Celebrities Consumed: How Bono's (PRODUCT) RED is selling Africa short

dpnash

The past few years have bore witness to a ballyhoo of celebrity philanthropy, from Bob Geldof's Live 8 concert series last year and “Brangelina's” humanitarian work in the Global South, to the more recent work of Bill Clinton's Global Initiative and Modonna's Malawian escapades. And then there's Bono, the crowned prince of celebrity-driven philanthropy. Who’s most recent campaign alongside Bobby Shriver focuses on the consumption of fashionable merchandise in the pursuit of AIDS relief. Because of PRODUCT (RED) you can now use your American Express RED (available only in the UK) to buy that Motorola RAZR and ipod Nano you've been dreaming about while picking out a wardrobe from the Gap and Emporio Armani to match those smashing RED Converse All Stars and walk away proud that you’ve done your thing in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

Flipping through a recent Sunday New York Times, I caught glimmer of Oprah dragging Bono, RED shopping bags in hand, out of an undisclosed Gap. The accompanying article by Michael Wine asserted that it wasn't just showmanship, but a virtuous persona that gave a handful of celebrities the ability to garner large public support for philanthropy. While Bono's persona of a debt relief-AIDS fighting-rock star may be a bit much, he brings in the dollars and cents. And while that's usually a good thing, it's exactly where this campaign gets muddled.

Wine's article quoted TidBITS.com's Adam Engst calling (PRODUCT) RED a form of “capitalictivism or activicapitalism:” a new breed of convergence between marketing and activism. Engst's fellow staff member, Mark H. Anbinder, described the campaign thusly, “The consumer wins, companies like Apple and Motorola win, and important charities win.” But I would disagree with both Engst and Anbinder. The type of marketing used in PRODUCT (RED) has been around for decades.

Take the most successful attempt at consumer activism: Fairtrade labeling, whose coffee isn't just sold around college campuses and bobo communities, but in supermarkets and mass-retailers worldwide. And Celebrities haven't been sitting on the sidelines either; the UK's Fairtrade Foundation recently got Trevor Leighton to photograph British celebs revealing their Fairtrade shopping habits. Let’s look at another great example: Adbuster's BlackSpot sneaker. A product that, when debuted, was heavily debated over for its very pursuit of activist ends through capitalist means. Opinions ranged from hypocrisy over the sneaker's anti-brand namesake obfuscating its existence as an actual brand; to acclimation for providing a sneaker that, in its sweatshop free, environmentally friendly, and cruelty free production, espoused social consciousness.

“Capitalictivism or activcapitalism,” as Engst has called it, isn't a new breed of convergence, it just hasn't been done before on a scale like this. Jeff Carlson, another associate from TidBITS.com put it best when he stated, “Of course, you need major brands and major influence (in this case, Apple and Bono) to accomplish this type of deal at such a large level.” And that's exactly what chides me most about PRODUCT (RED): a campaign founded on guiding consumers towards socially conscious goods focuses more on corporate consumption than consumer activism (see this).

As chic as consumer activism may be these days, that new RED iPOD nano or RED Gap t-shirt isn't exactly what the (PRODUCT) RED campaign makes it out to be. Consumers, corporations, charities, and celebrities may all go home and pat themselves on the back, but how much assistance is the campaign actually providing? Unlike Fairtrade coffee, Blackspot shoes, or even American Apparel clothing (with all it's recent criticism), the brand names involved with PRODUCT (RED) aren't founded on socially conscious production. People should not forget that even though the Gap's (PRODUCT) RED line is sweatshop free, the corporation itself, is not.

More deplorable is the campaign's failure to address the issue of illegal Coltan mines in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The mining of Coltan, a vital component in the production of RAZRs, iPods and just about every other electronic device manufactured, has drawn heavy criticism for helping to fuel war in the Congo, degrade the environmental, and kill Eastern Lowland Gorillas. While some manufactures (such as Motorola) have given way to public concern and certified the legality of their Coltan sources, others (such as Apple) have done little in the way of addressing the issue. Albeit the many complexities surrounding Coltan mining in the region, it is clear that the market for prostitution around the mines is a contributing factor in the spread of HIV/AIDS. There’s a sad irony about when purchasing a new RED iPod nano helps perpetuate the very epidemic this campaign is intended to take action against.

Product (RED) may prove to be fabulous at raising money to fight AIDS in Africa and boosting Apple’s fourth quarter earnings, but this campaign is far shy from consumer activism. I must admit however that the formula is brilliant. By keeping social activism at a minimum and celebrity consumption at a maximum, Product (RED) has succeed in selling consumerism off as the guilty free pleasure everyone longs it to be. Bono, you’ve proven once again that celebrities aren't just good philanthropy, they're good business.