I remember one time in class there was a discussion about Livestrong bracelets that Danielle brought up and ironically I, just like every other day, was wearing one on my wrist. And so, I read up her post, and I found it interesting on her take on the phenomena of charitable consumerism.
I can recollect back to the summer of 2004, and I was at the Nike outlet in Vacaville. As I was checking out my purchases, I noticed a box near the cashier selling yellow bracelets for $1. I asked the cashier what it was and she told me that it was a Livestrong bracelet, a fundraiser with the proceeds going towards Lance Armstrong’s cancer research foundation. I thought to myself “Hey, if it’s for a good cause, why not?” and bought 5 bracelets that I still use today.
What was interesting about Danielle’s post was when she stated that “LIVESTRONG attracted a new type marketing to consumers; feel good about what you buy because you are donating to an organization”. I have to agree, and noticed that people buy it just to be like “hey, look at me! I’m a socially conscious person and I donate my money to charity.” On the other hand, other people are not so ostentatious and don’t have the inclination to look good for other people by visually showing via Livestrong bracelets that they care. In essence, Livestrong has almost become a status symbol for the self-conscious person; a symbol seen worn by pretentious, fake people.
However, not all Livestrong band-wearers can be grouped into that description. There are always people who wear the bracelet because they are personally affected by cancer and it reminds them of the struggle and courage it takes to overcome it. Some wear it just because they like Lance Armstrong as an athlete, and some just wear it because they use it as motivation, and that’s acceptable.
I think in these situations, one has not to be cynical but rather question the motives of the companies for allowing the commercialization of a fundraiser, because after all, Nike and Gap is in the business of making money for themselves. However, in my personal opinion, I think organizations like Code Red and Livestrong are truly honest about their intentions of helping out and are just using the extra exposure and commercialization to promote their foundations.
Finally, with regards to Livestrong bands, I’ve come to the conclusion that many people have different reasons to wear the bracelets, and I cannot judge someone on their intentions of wearing it, and rather just worry about myself and “do me”.
1 comment:
First a few notes on grammar:
"I found it interesting on her take on the phenomena of charitable consumerism."—This sentence needs reworking, something like this: "I found her take on the phenomenon of charitable consumerism interesting." (Phenomenon is singular; phenomena is plural.)
"Nike and Gap is in the business..." should read Nike and Gap ARE in the business (two brands are plural).
Now, how does one "use" a bracelet? I have always found it interesting that Livestrong bracelets are purely symbolic; there is no real use value to these objects. Wouldn't it almost make sense to have a hat (for shade), or a watch (to tell time), or a pen (to write) that says "Livestrong" on it? I mean, something that one could actually *use*, not just wear as decoration? On the other hand, maybe this is precisely what makes the bracelets work as charity devices—they entirely reflect a cause, not any 'use'. (Except for social and self-image uses, which you craftily point out.)
This is a really complex subject, and so don’t render it simplistic by concluding that people just wear the bracelets for "different reasons." Instead, follow your earlier impulse and carefully examine the various reasons people wear the bracelets; for this kind of writing gets at the difficult and confusing areas of charitable consumerism.
Post a Comment