Kony 2012: A Revolution in Social Campaigns?

Kony 2012: A Revolution in Social Campaigns?

-- Guest post by Tina Cipara, George Mason University graduate student. 


“For the first time in history, the people of the world can see each other and want to protect each other. This changes everything.”

If you haven’t heard this quote by now, you may be in the minority. Excerpted from the viral documentary, Kony 2012, this is an idea that far transcends one lone social movement. It is a testament to an increasingly technological, global environment that has reinvented the wheel for social change campaigns. It is evidence of the power of social media in creating a “Global Village” that is impactful for social justice all around the world. In short, it is proof that the world as we knew it has been changed forever.

Since its release on March 5, Kony 2012 has received a record-breaking number of views on YouTube as well as Vimeo. In just six days, the 30-minute video received over 100 million hits, which to date makes it the most viral video of all time. They currently have over 3.5 million pledges and a sold out inventory, which is confirmation that their message has been well received. This popularity and effectiveness at getting people to take action, however, has not been met by everyone with open arms. 

In their investigation of the Kony 2012 phenomenon, the Pew Internet and American Life Project reported a number of differing views on the strategies used by the Kony 2012 creators, Invisible Children. One of the most prevalent criticisms is their oversimplification of the issue. As with most political human rights issues there are a number of complex and intertwined factors that are at stake. Oversimplifying and not taking all of these factors into consideration leads to a concern (for some) that deceptive framing could take place. According to a researcher at Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Ethan Zuckerman, these simple narratives can actually cause damage.

None of Kony 2012’s critics are denying that simple messages work. It is well documented that they do. Rather, their concern is that the simplicity of this particular narrative does not provide its audience with the tools to make a real difference. Some have even pointed to the campaign as slacktivism, which refers to individuals who support an issue or cause by participating superficially and never truly devoting themselves to making a change. 

Due to its simple message and even simpler way to take action, there is no doubt that a certain level of slacktivism is a possibility and probably even a reality for the Kony 2012 campaign. Similarly, some may even suffer from single action bias whereby their single deed of purchasing the action kit is enough to satiate their desire to help.  After which they promptly move on. 

Are these criticisms valid? Absolutely. Should they be considered when evaluating the effectiveness of this campaign? No doubt. But let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Consider for a moment that the filmmakers at Invisible Children created a narrative that encompassed the entire northern Uganda situation. This narrative would spotlight a variety of injustices that extend far beyond Kony and the LRA. It would depict a grave and seemingly insurmountable problem of which no one individual can make a difference. In other words, it would create what Paul Slovic describes as psychic numbing.

In essence, psychic numbing refers to an individual’s tendency to withdraw from issues that are overwhelming or appear to be unsolvable. Had Invisible Children tried to tackle the entire Ugandan issue in one 30-minute documentary, it would have been nearly overpowering. Its viewers, though emotionally triggered by the devastation of the situation, would feel disempowered to do anything about it. As Slovic’s fitting quote from Mother Theresa articulates: “If I look at the mass I will never act. If I look at the one, I will.”  

The complexity of the situation is without a doubt important to understanding the issue. That said, all education has to start somewhere. Perhaps the Kony 2012 narrative does not provide a holistic view of situation in northern Uganda, but what it does provide is a trigger for an individual’s knowledge gap, which can be used to stimulate additional information seeking according to Heath & Heath. It provides a simple, concrete example of the destruction of Kony’s regime all the while piquing interest in other parts of the issue. It is not meant as an education campaign, but rather an awareness campaign.

Though the campaign’s “Cover the Night” street initiative was less than successful, there’s one fact that no one can deny: Kony 2012 was a viral sensation.* It not only brought attention to the “bad guy” but also brought attention to the power individuals have in today’s society. The advent of social media has brought individuals on a global scale closer than ever before. It has provided a platform through which shared understanding is possible and information is no longer constricted by a relative few.

Kony 2012 wasn’t the first social movement to utilize social media and they certainly won’t be the last. The documentary did, however, pinpoint the importance of our changing environment and what it means for social injustice. It has also brought to light the power of younger generations and their ability to harness new media technologies for efforts toward social change. If nothing else, the filmmakers at Invisible Children showed the rest of the world that social media and its users are a force to be reckoned with. 

* Why Cover the Night largely failed to happen is an important unanswered question. Readers are encouraged to reply with their analysis of why people attended to this campaign in large numbers, but for the most part choose not to participate in the recommended manner.

--Tina Cipara is a recent graduate of the MA in Communication program at George Mason University. Her research interests include strategic communication and social change campaigns, the nexus of social media and co-creational public relations, and cultural implications of technology policy.

U.S. Navy controls inventions that claim to change "fabric of reality"

Inventions with revolutionary potential made by a mysterious aerospace engineer for the U.S. Navy come to light.

U.S. Navy ships

Credit: Getty Images
Surprising Science
  • U.S. Navy holds patents for enigmatic inventions by aerospace engineer Dr. Salvatore Pais.
  • Pais came up with technology that can "engineer" reality, devising an ultrafast craft, a fusion reactor, and more.
  • While mostly theoretical at this point, the inventions could transform energy, space, and military sectors.
Keep reading Show less

Why so gassy? Mysterious methane detected on Saturn’s moon

Scientists do not know what is causing the overabundance of the gas.

An impression of NASA's Cassini spacecraft flying through a water plume on the surface of Saturn's moon Enceladus.

Credit: NASA
Surprising Science
  • A new study looked to understand the source of methane on Saturn's moon Enceladus.
  • The scientists used computer models with data from the Cassini spacecraft.
  • The explanation could lie in alien organisms or non-biological processes.
Keep reading Show less

CRISPR therapy cures first genetic disorder inside the body

It marks a breakthrough in using gene editing to treat diseases.

Credit: National Cancer Institute via Unsplash
Technology & Innovation

This article was originally published by our sister site, Freethink.

For the first time, researchers appear to have effectively treated a genetic disorder by directly injecting a CRISPR therapy into patients' bloodstreams — overcoming one of the biggest hurdles to curing diseases with the gene editing technology.

The therapy appears to be astonishingly effective, editing nearly every cell in the liver to stop a disease-causing mutation.

The challenge: CRISPR gives us the ability to correct genetic mutations, and given that such mutations are responsible for more than 6,000 human diseases, the tech has the potential to dramatically improve human health.

One way to use CRISPR to treat diseases is to remove affected cells from a patient, edit out the mutation in the lab, and place the cells back in the body to replicate — that's how one team functionally cured people with the blood disorder sickle cell anemia, editing and then infusing bone marrow cells.

Bone marrow is a special case, though, and many mutations cause disease in organs that are harder to fix.

Another option is to insert the CRISPR system itself into the body so that it can make edits directly in the affected organs (that's only been attempted once, in an ongoing study in which people had a CRISPR therapy injected into their eyes to treat a rare vision disorder).

Injecting a CRISPR therapy right into the bloodstream has been a problem, though, because the therapy has to find the right cells to edit. An inherited mutation will be in the DNA of every cell of your body, but if it only causes disease in the liver, you don't want your therapy being used up in the pancreas or kidneys.

A new CRISPR therapy: Now, researchers from Intellia Therapeutics and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals have demonstrated for the first time that a CRISPR therapy delivered into the bloodstream can travel to desired tissues to make edits.

We can overcome one of the biggest challenges with applying CRISPR clinically.

—JENNIFER DOUDNA

"This is a major milestone for patients," Jennifer Doudna, co-developer of CRISPR, who wasn't involved in the trial, told NPR.

"While these are early data, they show us that we can overcome one of the biggest challenges with applying CRISPR clinically so far, which is being able to deliver it systemically and get it to the right place," she continued.

What they did: During a phase 1 clinical trial, Intellia researchers injected a CRISPR therapy dubbed NTLA-2001 into the bloodstreams of six people with a rare, potentially fatal genetic disorder called transthyretin amyloidosis.

The livers of people with transthyretin amyloidosis produce a destructive protein, and the CRISPR therapy was designed to target the gene that makes the protein and halt its production. After just one injection of NTLA-2001, the three patients given a higher dose saw their levels of the protein drop by 80% to 96%.

A better option: The CRISPR therapy produced only mild adverse effects and did lower the protein levels, but we don't know yet if the effect will be permanent. It'll also be a few months before we know if the therapy can alleviate the symptoms of transthyretin amyloidosis.

This is a wonderful day for the future of gene-editing as a medicine.

—FYODOR URNOV

If everything goes as hoped, though, NTLA-2001 could one day offer a better treatment option for transthyretin amyloidosis than a currently approved medication, patisiran, which only reduces toxic protein levels by 81% and must be injected regularly.

Looking ahead: Even more exciting than NTLA-2001's potential impact on transthyretin amyloidosis, though, is the knowledge that we may be able to use CRISPR injections to treat other genetic disorders that are difficult to target directly, such as heart or brain diseases.

"This is a wonderful day for the future of gene-editing as a medicine," Fyodor Urnov, a UC Berkeley professor of genetics, who wasn't involved in the trial, told NPR. "We as a species are watching this remarkable new show called: our gene-edited future."

Quantcast