We have all seen them. The commercials on television asking for one dollar a day. When I was younger, these commercials were exclusively directed toward children in third world countries. Today, the lions share of them are now devoted to abused cats and dogs. In many respects, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) has effectively troped the Christian Children's Fund's (CCF) strategies. Not only do these commercials share the same formal qualities, but a NY Times article reported that the ASPCA commercial starring Sarah McLachlan raised $30 million alone--ASPCA's annual budget is around $50 million! (While I cannot find any figures revealing how effective CCF commercials are, I suspect that lately the ASPCA has been more financially successful.) In this post, I want to draw attention to the similar portrayals of children and pets in these commercials. More importantly, however, I want to begin questioning why these similarities matter. To jog your memory, here are two standard commercials produced by each:
Christian Children's Fund
ASPCA
Perhaps the most obvious similarity is the request for a small amount of money to improve the life of a suffering child or animal. In both cases, the children and animals are portrayed as dirty, disheveled, and needing love and medical treatment. Another similarity is the photograph that the donor will receive (although this particular CCF commercial does mention this, they and other child sponsorship organizations, e.g., Compassion International, are famous for it). Despite the ASPCA's nonreligious orientation, they echo the religious underpinnings of the CCF commercials through McLachlan's song, "In the Arms of an Angel." Even the cages in the ASPCA commercial are reminiscent of the fences that the children often hide/stand behind in the CCF commercial.
A favorite technique used in both videos is a close-up shot of the face. Indeed, the CCF's narrator and McLachlan aside, one could argue that the eyes of the children and animals do all the talking. Yet, notice, too, that neither the animals or children say much of anything. Having watched a number of these CCF commercials, I can attest that one never hears a child speak, except as some unintelligible background noise. The same goes for animals, albeit for more obvious reasons. Thus, in both commercials, these suffering children and animals are completely spoken for by another.
The ASPCA's imitation of the CCF commercial reveals a lot about our society's portrayal of children. Indeed, by noting their similarities one is better able to recognize the extent to which children are spoken for and seen as needing assistance. To be sure, anyone who has been around children understands that they do need some guidance. Children do not recognize their limits and often hurt themselves. What is troubling, however, about this commercial is that it does not bother to listen to children, to hear their (side of the) story. When children in the commercial speak, it is unintelligible and generally off-screen. Similarly to animals, children are meant to be seen and not heard. When one considers that the individuals producing the commercial have the power to edit anything a child might say, and thereby use it to the CCF's advantage, this critique is even more damning. It's not simply that the CCF is trying to control the childrens' story. They do not want the children to vocalize it.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
*At this point, it is difficult for me to generalize how common this "silent-child" portrayal is, though I suspect that it may be common technique for humanitarian groups.
**I also suspect that some readers may contend that the children are unable to speak English. Hence, the silent treatment. However, having sponsored several compassion children years ago and gone on mission trips, I know that foreign children often know how to speak English. Indeed, when it comes to learning a new language, children have an easier time than adults. Thus, if the CCF wanted to, they could have found a child say something intelligible to an English-speaking audience.
***To be sure, there are a lot of variables at play in this commercial. For instance, race and gender play an important role. Feel free to comment about these below if you want. However, for the sake of better understanding child identity I have decided to limit my discussion accordingly.
