In my last 'Blogging the Globe' class, we watched a 'Democracy Now' video featuring Slavoj Zizek. 
Zizek hails from Slovenia and is one of the most popular (and most opinionated) critics of global capitalism. He is often referred to as "the Elvis of Philosophy" or the "hippest" philosopher. I think in this long, but highly entertaining, clip you could see why. I thought this video helps explain America's production of cultural capital as a tool for attempted social change. Zizek supports many of my personal arguments about the structure and hierarchy of charitable and humanitarian action.
Let's see what you think:
The Logic of Charity
Throughout this video, I felt an ethical push and pull. You start thinking in your heard, "Wait I own a pair of TOMs, wait I occasionally buy a cup of coffee from Starbucks." By the end, I realize that cultural consumption with the hope of producing some social good is not necessarily an unethical thing to do. Zizek is not stating that we should all be misanthropic and unsupportive of organizations and charitable businesses. He believes that America should recognize that "you buy your redemption from only being a consumerist." This is a naturalized view in America because we carry heavy burdens we often feel from hurting the environment, using our cars, buying clothese from China, etc. Yet these small "remedies do not cure the disease." These people operate a bit differently but they still reside in the overarching structure that created their situation
Global Capitalism with a Human Face
Zizek believes that "the real aim is to try and reconstruct on such a basis that poverty is impossible." I interpret this idea as the unfortunate truth that the impoverished need to be so fed up with the development situation, that they need to fight back. The structure of development and charitable action must change. I feel you must prevent the issues rather than put a bandaid over them. This is not to say relief issues for natural disasters at your local grocery store are useless, but before you donate to the Somali famine so you can sleep at night, I would ask yourself, "Why is there a famine in Somalia? Could Somalia prevented this issue? What international actors were involved?"
Food for Thought
One statment that Zizek makes and does not really explain is: "There is a certain type of misanthropy which is much better as a social attitude than this cheap, charitable optimism and so on." What type of misanthropy would be socially acceptable and useful for social change?