Kony 2012 in review

In March 2012 an online video, Kony 2012, was launched by Invisible Children, Inc. The film campaigns for the arrest of Joseph Kony, alleged Commander-in-Chief of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), to bring him before the International Criminal Court (ICC). On top of the ICC's most wanted list, Kony is charged with war crimes, including the forced enlistment of children, and crimes against humanity. Within six days of the video's release it had been watched by over 100 million people. If you hate Joseph Kony you are now joined by a host of celebrities including Rihanna, Kim Kardashian and Justin Bieber.¹

I am delighted to introduce a collection of four reviews of that video and campaign.² The reviewers reflect a range of disciplinary perspectives, providing comment on the most widely shared human rights video ever. The reviews reflect on what Kony 2012 has achieved, its limitations, and wider lessons for human rights practice. Kony 2012 can be mapped on to classic human rights debates – addressing symptoms versus the root causes of violations; methods used to mobilize versus those used to educate; and the means of pursuing human rights outcomes versus the emphasis on desired ends.³ In addition to this, the medium of the campaign itself highlights new opportunities and challenges for human rights organizations. Drumbl (2012) sees ‘clicktivism’ as deeply problematic – as synonymous with cursory engagement. In contrast, Gregory (2012) argues that by complementing ‘clicktivism’ with other forms of action we can build sustained participation.

Each of the reviewers includes in their evaluation of Kony 2012 a consideration both of what is right and what works. Waldorf (2012), Gregory (2012), and Hickman (2012) suggest that considering the ethics of representation alongside effectiveness highlights the need for trade-offs. Kony 2012's audience-driven approach (principally emphasizing the agency of US youth) means it has been successful at mobilizing this constituency yet is criticized for its lack of representation of Ugandan voices and agency (Gregory, 2012; Waldorf, 2012). Hickman (2012) argues that an observational curiosity means narratives take time to unfold – incompatible with the bullet-pointed messages of campaigning. In contrast, Drumbl (2012) suggests that effectiveness depends on an improved ethics of representation – we cannot trade one for the other. By obscuring the complexities of child soldiering we end up advocating ineffectual solutions – misguided law and the neglect of the root causes of violations.

Kony 2012 leaves human rights practitioners with a challenge: can we build on the campaign's use of social media to attract such unprecedented public attention whilst campaigning with responsibility to the stories we tell and generating sustained interest?⁴ This set of reviews aims to foster debate and begin to develop responses to such a challenge.

1

Thanks to Holly Steel for this observation!

2

Huge thanks to all the reviewers for their time and work. A special thanks to Lars Waldorf (Centre for Applied Human Rights, University of York) for his support in bringing this collection of reviews together.

3

This comment owes a debt to Professor Paul Gready, Director of the Centre for Applied Human Rights (University of York).

4

For a more in-depth discussion of ‘responsibility to the story’ see the Journal of Human Rights Practice 2010 special issue 2(2) focusing on the subject.