Democracy Guest List

insert "freedom of the press" joke here

Nicholas Kristof: Half the Sky, All the Credit

by Melissa Gira Grant and Anne Elizabeth Moore 

Nick Kristof is a big fan of workplace evaluation for teachers—so we hope he won’t mind if we gather and share the following by way of conducting a performance review of our own.

The occasion? This week Kristof and his wife Sheryl WuDunn’s book Half The Sky premieres on PBS as a two-part mini series, providing an opportunity for his audience to step into his well-worn white savior shoes. From this unique vantage point, viewers will survey the lives of young women whom Kristof and WuDunn have chosen as the best ciphers for their agenda, to, as the subtitle of their book puts it, “turn oppression into opportunity.”

Yet even linguistically, something nags about that title: one does not go from being oppressed to being opportuned—or do they? Perhaps a better question to ask is: for whom does Kristof’s particular mode of humanitarianism provide opportunity? Some young women may benefit, certainly. But NGOs, private-public partnerships, and other enterprising (and entrepreneurial) young do-gooders are jumping into the fray, too. All turning oppression into opportunity—but ultimately not doing much about eradicating the oppression in the first place.

When Kristof is not proposing dubious schemes for advancing women’s rights—like arresting sex workers in order to “rescue” them from prostitution, or enthusiastically supporting the creation of “sweatshops” to accommodate sex workers and other women in the global south—he is marshalling support for such “solutions,” enlisting folks from George Clooney to President Obama, and from evangelical youth missionaries to the United Nations. Everyone seems to love that he’s created simple solutions (Video games! Donating money! Building schools!) but few note that such “solutions” fail to address the deeply embedded, long-standing, structural problems that cause poverty and gender inequity in the first place.

Let’s not forget that although Kristof may position himself like a walking, talking, reporting NGO, Kristof is not himself a charitable venture. He is a media-maker: his job is to talk and get talked about. Each young woman’s story that he tells bolsters up his own brand; each solution he offers casts himself in a prime-time starring role.

Nicholas Kristof: A Collective Evaluation

The Soft Side of Imperialism (Laura Agustín)

Here he is beaming down at obedient-looking Cambodian girls, or smiling broadly beside a dour, unclothed black man with a spear, whilst there he is with Ashton and Demi, Brad and Angelina, George Clooney. He professes humility, but his approach to journalistic advocacy makes himself a celebrity. He is the news story: Kristof is visiting, Kristof is doing something.

In interviews, he refers to the need to protect his humanitarian image, and he got one Pulitzer Prize because he “gave voice to the voiceless”. Can there be a more presumptuous claim? Educated at both Harvard and Oxford, he nevertheless appears ignorant of critiques of Empire and grassroots women’s movements alike. Instead, Kristof purports to speak forgirls and women and then shows us how grateful they are.

The White Savior Industrial Complex (Teju Cole)

I want to tread carefully here: I do not accuse Kristof of racism nor do I believe he is in any way racist. I have no doubt that he has a good heart. Listening to him on the radio, I began to think we could iron the whole thing out over a couple of beers. But that, precisely, is what worries me. That is what made me compare American sentimentality to a “wounded hippo.” His good heart does not always allow him to think constellationally. He does not connect the dots or see the patterns of power behind the isolated “disasters.” All he sees are hungry mouths, and he, in his own advocacy-by-journalism way, is putting food in those mouths as fast as he can. All he sees is need, and he sees no need to reason out the need for the need.

Be Aware: Nick Kristof’s Anti-Politics (Elliott Prasse-Freeman)

Kristof’s ability to frame and deliver the world’s horrors to millions—in a way that keeps those millions coming back for more—seemingly should make him worthy of the hero worship that has attended his rise. Indeed, what is worse than a privileged bourgeois population that knows nothing of the way the other half (or rather the other 99 percent) lives? And yet the devil as always remains in the details—or in Kristof’s case, the lack of details. For, when exploring why Kristof has become a high priest of liberal opinion in America (arrogating the right to speak on almost any sociopolitical phenomenon, provided it involves an easily identifiable victim), we crash into what can be called Kristof’s anti-politics: the way his method and style directly dehumanize his subjects, expelling them from the realm of the analytical by refusing to connect them to systems and structures that animate their challenges.

Mr. Kristof, I Presume? (Kathryn Mathers)

All of the copies of Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn’s book Half the Sky were checked out of the libraries of nearby universities last summer. My students know that there are problems with the development and aid industries and can even offer biting critiques of celebrity interventions in aid programs in Africa. But they believe that they can do it better, that their generation understands the failures and can solve them, and that their intentions are pure enough to overcome the cynics. Their confidence is made possible in part by the examples of individual young Americans just like them establishing and running educational, health, and technological programs in Africa trumpeted by a serious journalist like Kristof in a serious newspaper like the New York Times. Kristof’s writing about humanitarianism in Africa makes possible a very limited but accessible form of aid by asking his readers to focus on what they can do and the importance of one individual saving another. So, no, I do not want to write about Nicolas Kristof. But I must, because he has claimed such an authoritative voice in conversations about Americans’ relationship to Africans that he has somehow made the act of writing about them an actual intervention in the lives of poor people in the world.

You need Nicholas Kristof (Dan Moshenberg)

If you’re an African girl in trouble, there are only two things you can rely on. Your courage … and Nicholas Kristof. At least, that’s what Kristof would have us believe.

The story Kristof tells is the story he’s told before. This time he’s in Sierra Leone. A 15-year-old girl named Fulamatu is raped by her neighbor. This happens repeatedly, and Fulamatu remains in terrified and terrorized silence. She loses weight, becomes sick. Finally, when two girls report that the pastor had tried to rape them, Fulamatu’s parents put two and two together, and asked their daughter, who reports the whole series of events. They take her to the doctor, where she is found to have gonorrhea. Fulamatu lays charges against the pastor, who flees.

That’s where Kristof comes in… He argues for US Congressional passage for the International Violence Against Women Act, but his story suggests a more important line of action. The story says, if you’re Black and a girl, in `a place like Sierra Leone’, you better have the phone number of a prominent White American Male. You need Nicholas Kristof.

Obama, Please Ignore Kristof For Now (Melissa Gira Grant)

Nicholas Kristof has been issuing ad-hoc Presidential guidance on the sex trade for years now. The archive of his editorial column in the New York Times serves as a record of his proposals. In 2004, he “bought the freedom” of two women working in brothels in Poipet, Cambodia with the intention of returning them to their villages. Kristof wasn’t prosecuted under US law for the purchase of sex slaves — he wrote of this sale as an “emancipation,” and in 2005, he was back in Poipet to check up on the women. One had returned to prostitution, prompting Kristof to offer another round of recommendations to President Bush, pleading with him to commit the United States to a New Abolitionism. Now he’s back with his 2009 agenda, delivered like the others, as a kicker to his column. In it, he asks that the Obama administration pressure the Cambodian government to bust more brothels, on the premise that the risk of going to jail for selling sex will hurt brothel owners’ profits and will protect more women from abuse and violence. Yet such stings and raids are already the centerpiece of a disastrous crackdown on Cambodian prostitution.

Nick Kristof to the rescue! (Irin Carmon)

The narrative proceeded in a familiar fashion: There were villains, even some with military ties; then there is a rescue. Kristof tweeted, “Girls are rescued, but still very scared Youngest looks about 13, trafficked from Vietnam.” And then, “Social workers comforting the girls, telling them they are free, won’t be punished, rapes are over.” He was accompanied by Cambodian anti-trafficking activist and forced-prostitution survivor Somaly Mam. Post-presidential niece Lauren Bush chimed in perkily, “Awesome reporting by @NickKristof as the (sic) raided a brothel in Cambodia with @SomalyMam this morning!” The trouble is, nothing involving sex work is ever quite as cut-and-dried as a sweeping rescue.

The Rescue Industry (Paper Bird)

During the Egyptian Revolution, when the New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof was wandering Midan Tahrir giving the uprising his ponderous approval, I told friends that if Mubarak wanted to get at least one pesky journalist off his back, he need only give Nick directions to Clotbey Street — the capital’s ancient red-light district — and tell him there were girls who needed saving. Such is Kristof’s passion to rescue misused and trafficked women that he would have dropped everything to head there. And given that Nick permits no struggle for human freedom to go on without him, the revolt would surely have been suspended, and Mubarak would still be in charge.

A human trafficker defends Cambodian sweatshops (Erik W Davis)

Kristof suggests that an expansion of bad sweatshop conditions (and despite relatively better conditions, Cambodian factories are largely sweatshops) is a solution to poverty. He’s full of it. His heart might be in the right place, but he’s stopped using his reason. The factories are not doing the job that development economists expected it to do from the beginning, which was to industrialize the country and expand the off-farm job base (and therefore, reduce poverty). Today, 91% of Cambodian heads of households still list agriculture as their primary employment, and at least 80% still live in the impoverished provinces. The factories won’t expand (indeed, as I point out, they are rapidly shrinking) just because Kristof thinks that the scavengers at Stung Meanchey dump could use a better form of subsistence.

FarmVille (Maggie McNeill)

If Kristof had ever demonstrated some actual regard for the complex and often contradictory desires, needs and behaviors of real women I might not read this subtext into his silly game, but he hasn’t; females of every age are simply props to him, little game-pieces whose function is the aggrandizement of Nicholas Kristof. He treats the real lives of sex workers as FarmVille players treat the existence of their virtual creatures: as things to be manipulated for profit and “points”. He uses the stories of girls to build up his own reputation, exaggerating their lurid details and reworking them into enslavement porn from which he reaps the profit while condemning others as “pimps” (talk about pot calling kettle black…) He participates in Hollywood cowboy “brothel raids”, then never stops to wonder what happened to the women he “rescued” afterward. And he no more bothers to consider what the girls he “rescues” and writes about might want than a FarmVille player considers the desires of his digital farm animals. To Kristof, individual women are as interchangeable and passive as endlessly-duplicated digital beasts, and our function is to stay wherever he puts us and earn him money and status.

Cross-posted from POSTWHOREAMERICA, where Melissa put it up earlier this morning.

Melissa Gira Grant writes on gender, sexuality, politics, and more often than she would like, on badvocacy like Half The Sky. She is indebted to the sex worker rights’ activists around the world and in Cambodia in particular for their firsthand accounts of the damage this dude has wrought.

Anne Elizabeth Moore has been working in and around young women’s issues in Cambodia for five years. Her book Cambodian Grrrl has been suggested as a Half The Sky alternative, for folks made reasonably uncomfortable with white neoliberal portrayals of feminism. 

 

Written by Anne Elizabeth Moore

October 1, 2012 at 8:20 pm

5 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I’m mixed about Kristof’s results, but admit to being a fan. He and Wudunn have done a lot to bring positive attention to very marginalized, yes voiceless, communities. Yes, I could live without the celebrities along for the ride and the attention. Important points are made here, although they are very academic and weigh heavily towards critique, without laying out or any real alternatives.

    CH

    October 2, 2012 at 12:20 pm

  2. Hi—Catherine, is it? I’d never begrudge you the right to root for Kristof—although one wishes the fandom transferred back to the source, the young women around the world actually surviving the horrors he describes in such quick and easy prose. But you seem to have missed a couple of key points:
    1. That for Melissa and I to lay out alternatives, we’d be playing into the game of presenting overly simplistic answers to incredibly complex problems that, frankly, can’t be covered in a blog post (or, even, a book), and
    2. That both Melissa and I work every day, in the places Kristof describes, or with some of the people Kristof talks about, or around some of the key issues that Kristof claims to be addressing. (That’s why the bios are right there for you. You don’t even have to Google!) The work we do *is* an alternative to the work Kristof does. (And sometimes, a necessary clean-up, after his work is done.)
    If your question is, then, why don’t Melissa and I each have columns in the New York Times to present these alternative models, I’d refer you back to point one, above. You’ll note that one key difference between our work and Kristof’s is that we refuse to speak for marginalized women—they do have voices, in fact. You just have to listen to them.

    Anne Elizabeth Moore

    October 2, 2012 at 1:25 pm

  3. In response to CH, I wouldn’t describe any of the critiques we listed as “academic.” (We did have some critiques published in academic journals we considered publishing, but those are mostly held behind paywalls.) They may make use of critical race theory, feminism, critiques of neo-colonialism and neo-liberalism, and that was a choice. Kristof and WuDunn certainly have those critiques available to them, and they don’t employ them, and so we will.

    On the “greater good”/”good intentions” defense many folks make of Kristof, I don’t go along with it. When Kristof over-simplifies a complex issue, he invites us to propose and support equally simple solutions.

    Here’s Laura Seay, who writes as Texas In Africa (http://texasinafrica.blogspot.com/2010/04/people-not-characters.html), on that point:

    “I take a lot of heat for disliking Kristof’s writing. Most commenters argue that we should excuse Kristof’s sensationalism of victims of injustice since he has such a wide reach. “Isn’t it better that more people are aware of the crisis?” they argue.

    Not if their awareness is based on falsehoods or incomplete truths. Kristof’s job as a reporter is to explain the parts of the world that the vast majority of his readers will never see. By always, only reporting on the worst of the worst, Kristof distorts reality. He may tell one person’s story, but as Shona points out, it’s not really even that person’s full story. In doing so, readers get an inaccurate picture of what life is like in the eastern Congo, the southern Sudan, or, I’d venture to guess, the brothels of India.

    Bad facts lead to bad policy. This is why journalists’ sacred trust with the public is so important. Policy makers – most of whom will never go to or have a full understanding of these areas – read their stories. Because Kristof’s reach is so broad and because his columns run in one of the most important papers in the world, he does a terrible disservice to the very people he purports to help. Mr. Kristof, it’s time to show your subjects for what they are: people.”

  4. Thanks for responding. By way of my “cred,” to speak to these issues — I am a survivor myself and work together with advocates and survivors of intimate partner violence, rape, and trafficking, and have for over 20 years (in NYC). Be careful not to assume that “rooting” for Kristof means I do not listen to women or have no understanding of intersecting and salient issues. I am not without a critique of media/journalistic involvement, but feel that Kristof is an odd target. I don’t see his work as offering “simplistic” solutions.” Initially, their work (it’s not just Kristof, but Wudunn as well, so why the focus only on him?), seemed to be more about bringing attention to on-the-ground activists and their efforts, though lately it does begin to ring more of adulation. I’m confused about the statement that Kristof highlights the “worst of the worst,” since what I see him highlighting is the important work of local women activists within communities who give voice to these oppressions. What is your critique about Amie Kandeh or Somaly Mam and their involvement with Kristof? Anyway, I appreciate the engagement.

    CH

    October 2, 2012 at 4:14 pm

  5. Hi Catherine. I appreciate the engagement too—and I would never ask you for “cred” or to prove an “authentic” interest (personal or otherwise) in these issues. I would also never presume that your appreciation of Kristof means you don’t also listen to women you work with—I was only responding to your characterization of women he works with as “voiceless” in the previous comment. Clearly you are as aware as Melissa and I that this is not true—although you repeated Kristof’s defense of his work in this context (he has oft claimed to give voice to the voiceless.) So why does his rhetoric get to set the tone, even among those of us who know better? We shouldn’t let it—at least, I won’t let it.

    As for why the focus on Kristof, it’s clear: he writes the NYT column, which I believe to be the starting point for many of these problems. I plan on publishing more about Half the Sky, the book, in a different context—for publication in my follow up to Cambodian Grrrl, a book called New Girl Law.

    I cannot speak to critiques of Amie Kandeh. Although I respect Somaly Mam a great deal, she has been accused of fabricating some details of her biography. Further critiques of her work at this time are best left to others; but I encourage you to seek them out if you are genuinely interested.

    Anne Elizabeth Moore

    October 2, 2012 at 5:30 pm


Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,275 other followers

%d bloggers like this: