Africa Representation_Reflection Memo

The main topic of the second lesson could be summarized into two words – simplification and deconstruction of dominant African narratives. The very first question that was raised based on the readings was if the simplification is really inevitable. Past or ongoing conflicts and problems in African states were always complex and somehow not profoundly understood by the people outside of Africa. It is difficult to say who to blame it for. Many suggested that actually mainstream media are responsible for producing superficial stories with negative connotations while providing only information which makes the story more interesting for wider audience.

On the other hand, nowadays we have easy access to alternative channels of information and alternative voices which can provide a broader picture of the problems and conflicts. Autesserre’s article about unintended consequences of dominant narratives relies particularly on the various local and foreign actors that are developing the alternative narratives to contest the dominant ones. But could they really succeed? Unfortunately, those not simplified stories can only hardly replace the narratives presented by mainstream media, politicians or NGOs. Because black and white stories are more probable to draw an attention and resonate among the audience who is not interested in the background or in the details of the conflicts.

Furthermore, in the relation to emphasizing “local participation” and local voices was raised a question who actually local is and what does it mean. Because even local people have their own points of view, own “agendas” that could also favor simple storylines and one-sided narratives. So to see and understand the complexity of the particular issue objectively does not mean to be local, but to be familiar with the all sides of the problem.

But the question is how far can this simplified story go? As we could see in the “Kony 2012” campaign, the aim was to make people know about the Ugandan guerilla leader, raise money and force the US administration to respond militarily to the internal conflict. It did not serve as an information campaign that should clarify the background and facts about atrocities that took place in Uganda. This leads to the dilemma which was stressed out in the discussion: is it worse to have ill-informed audience, or not informed at all?

The second discussed issue dealt with a deconstruction of dominant African narratives. First of all, many suggested that usually is African continent presented as a one entity. It means that in most cases neither media nor general public distinguish each African state as a specific unit with its own culture, traditions, policies and history. Referring to a particular state while talking about African identity is still not common even though we have many possibilities how to obtain real information that is not influenced by any prevailing narrative.

Some pointed out that the way how we refer to African state could be a legacy of the colonial past. This argument could be partially truth but the fact is that Asia was also colonized and we apply totally different approach to Asian states.

However, we can witness how dominant African narratives about mad African rebels, problematic tribal system, famine, violence, rapes and illiteracy became a stable part of NGOs' rhetoric. Furthermore, some international organizations accepted it as the only way how to present African continent to the audience and politicians in order to receive funding and grants. As it was also mentioned in the readings, countries have to deal with other serious problems but unfortunately, they do not sound as attractive for general public and governments as sexual violence or famine.

Power of framing led to the stage where complexity is no more accepted while creating agendas and projects that should help to improve particular region. Everyone is looking for easy solutions to the uneasy conditions. The great example of this attitude is also "Kony 2012" campaign - in spite of successful fundraising, it did not provide satisfying solutions that could bring long-lasting stability to Uganda. Instead of it, US president accepted US military presence as one of the best options how to secure peace there.

The question is then how can this be changed in the future? It is highly probable that people in general will be caring less about what they do not consider for being as immediate threat. It is not only in the case of African conflicts but also in the case of any conflict so far. The biggest change should come from the mainstream media and politicians that are shaping the overall opinion the most. Only in this case can be the new barbarism overcome.