THE CULT(URE) OF CHARITY AND THE

MYTHS OF FREE THE CHILDREN

JEANNINE MARIE HOLWILL

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER'S OF ARTS

GRADUATE PROGRAM IN COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE YORK UNIVERSITY, TORONTO, ONTARIO

MAY 2010 Library and Archives Bibliothèque et 1*1 Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de l'édition

395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1 A 0N4 Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Canada Canada

Your file Votre référence ISBN: 978-0-494-68278-4 Our file Notre référence ISBN: 978-0-494-68278-4

NOTICE: AVIS:

The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant à la Bibliothèque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par télécommunication ou par l'Internet, prêter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des thèses partout dans le loan, distribute and sell theses monde, à des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non- support microforme, papier, électronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats.

The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriété du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protège cette thèse. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from ¡t may be ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation. without the author's permission.

In compliance with the Canadian Conformément à la loi canadienne sur la Privacy Act some supporting forms protection de la vie privée, quelques may have been removed from this formulaires secondaires ont été enlevés de thesis. cette thèse.

While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans in the document page count, their la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu removal does not represent any loss manquant. of content from the thesis.

1+1 Canada The (Cult)ure of Charity and the Myths of Free the Children

By Jeannine Marie Holwill a thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies of York University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

©2010

Permission has been granted to: a) YORK UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES to lend or sell copies of this thesis in paper, microform or electronic formats, and b) LIBRARY AND ARCHIVES CANADA to reproduce, lend, distribute, or sell copies of this thesis anywhere in the world in microform, paper or electronic formats and to authorize or procure the reproduction, loan, distribution or sale of copies of this thesis anywhere in the world in microform, paper or electronic formats. The author reserves other publication rights, and neither the thesis nor extensive extracts from it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author's written permission. ¡?

Abstract

A Canadian charity with global reach, Free the Children claims to be the "largest network of children helping children" in the world. What began as a grassroots advocacy group for children's rights has evolved into a complicated empire that mixes international charity with 'socially responsible' private ventures. In the fifteenth year of operation Free the Children, along with its administrators Marc and Craig Kielburger, has thus far eluded substantial academic investigation. However with 350,000 youth participating in Free the Children programs and 19.6 Million dollars raised in 2008 alone, the influence of this charitable organization demands exploration. Through a critical analysis of texts produced by Free the Children; with support from Mauss' understanding of the gift, Barthes' mythology and Kertzer's discussion of ritual; what follows is an exploration of this charity's considerable ability to impact the cultural and ideological constructs of both the Canadian and international community. V

Acknowledgements

The intent of this research is to encourage reflection on an organization that, to date, has received little critical analysis. As a passionate volunteer myself, I offer this analysis not as a condemnation of the organization itself, but rather as a critique of the many assumptions made based upon notions of altruism.

The development of this paper was supported by a number of family members, friends and colleagues. I am grateful for the constant encouragement I received each and every one of you. The many late night phone calls, marathon research sessions and heated debates were invaluable to this writing process. I would like to specifically thank Professor Amin Alhassan for his guidance, encouragement and unwavering support of my research. vi

Table of Contents

Abstract iv Acknowledgements ? Table of Contents vi List of Tables vii Introduction 1 A (Brief) History of International Development 7 International Development Gives Rise to Development Discourse 9 Freeing the Children: A Canadian Initiative 14 In the Beginning: A Noble Goal to Free the Children 14 Me to We: Reading, Watching and Wearing the Movement 19 The Gift and International Development 23 Theories of the Gift 25 The Development Gift 45 The Gift of Free the Children 47 Discourse, Myth and Free the Children 59 Critical Discourse Analysis and Free the Children 65 Discourse, Ideology and Myth 67 Free the Children Dot Com 71 Free the Children's 'We Day' 85 Ritualizing International Development 86 A Rock Concert for Social Change 105 The Kielburger Brothers: Co-founders and Co-stars 115 Conclusion 120 VII

List of Tables

Table 1: Barthes' Analysis of Myth 68 1

On a routine Wednesday morning in early April of 1995, Craig Kielburger sat down at his family's kitchen table with the morning paper in his hands. On his search for the daily comics Craig stumbled upon the inspiration for what has become his life's work. In the paper that day was a story about a young boy who had been sold into slavery by his parents, a concept entirely unfamiliar to Craig. This young boy, the article told, had struggled his way to freedom and resisted the life of oppression forced upon him, only to be martyred at age 12. Iqbal Masih was shot and killed near his home in Pakistan for speaking out against the child labour practices that had enslaved him for most of his childhood. Craig, himself only twelve years old and reading the story of Iqbal from the comfort of his family home in Canada, was horrified to hear of this boy's incredibly difficult life and tragic death. With a number of unanswered questions running through his mind, Craig's mission began. Initially, it was simply research on child labour practices to satiate a desire to learn more. This quickly evolved into speeches educating his fellow classmates on Iqbal's unfortunate fate and the plight of many other children like Iqbal. When Craig asked his classmates for help to fight for children's rights, eleven children immediately raised their hands, eager to join his crusade. On a spring day in 1995, inside a Toronto classroom, Free the Children was born. Today, only fifteen years later, Free the Children is the self-described "largest network of children helping children" in the world. By most measures, Free the Children has been a successful endeavour, 2

transforming from a small youth group into a nationally registered charity in both Canada and the United States, boasting a fundraising total in excess of 19 million dollars annually (Free the Chldren, 2009f).

It is nearly impossible to criticize actions born from this incredible compassion shown by Craig Kielburger and his eleven classmates the day they founded Free the Children. In the discussion that follows, the motivation of a 12-year-old boy, and the thousands more that have followed his lead, are not intended to be the objects of critique. The impact of this moment of inspiration, however, will be explored. In the fifteen years that have passed since Craig asked his peers to join him on his mission, the Free the Children initiative has grown from a grassroots advocacy group into an international, multi-million dollar, aid organization providing support to communities in more than 45 countries around the world. The co-founders of Free the Children, Craig and his brother Marc Kielburger claim that the unique way in which their organization runs is intended to change the way Canadians perceive and participate in philanthropic endeavors (Free the Children, 2009h). A bold, yet not entirely unfounded statement, given the incredible amount of support the organization has received from private corporations, school boards, youth leaders and celebrities alike. While achieving an unprecedented level of success in a rather short timeframe, Free the Children's rise to 'blockbuster charity' status (Wingrove, 2010) has, for the most part, received little to no 3

criticism. Multiple inquiries into the organization within the mainstream media, through not-for-profit watchdog organizations and academic journals were largely unsuccessful. Any information available was self-produced by Free the Children or was largely fact based and promotional in tone. The search for academic research on the organization provided no results. Certainly, an organization that has successfully gained support from international political leaders including Nelson Mandela and cultural ¡cons like Oprah Winfrey has significant power to influence and impact communities, and yet this influence has not yet been addressed through academic analysis. Although not-for- profit organizations do not directly participate in the market system, they are certainly intertwined within the world of power, patriarchy, capitalism and neo- liberalism, and therefore not immune from the influences of each of these paradigms. It is important, therefore, to consider the actions of Free the Children and the impact the charity has on the local and international communities through the inspiration of benevolent acts in the name of international development.

In her study of modern philanthropy, liana Silber (1998) suggests that much can be learned about philanthropic acts by taking an approach similar to Marcel Mauss, an anthropologist who gained notoriety for his research on the practice of gift giving in ancient societies. Silber suggests that the "modern philanthropic gift is no less a total phenomenon than archaic gift 4

exchange" (p. 144), and as such, the analysis that follows will look at the blend of ideological, esthetic, and moral dimensions of Free the Children, in an effort to understand how the forms and functions of gift giving influence the impact Free the Children has, both on the recipients of aid and those engaged in the gift giving efforts.

Also interested in the connection of gift-giving and charity, Nan Kapoor (2008) suggests foreign aid to be an perfect example of the contradictory nature of the gift which Mauss originally identified, because "on the one hand, the discourse of aid is constructed as non-reciprocated gift; but on the other, the discursive practice of aid is also closely tied to conditionalities, be they economic (tied aid), ideological (neoliberalism), or political (foreign policy objectives)" (p.78). He further suggests that the assumed altruistic nature of the gift serves to cover over the political and economic dimensions of the gift (Kapoor, 2008). This 'mystique of the gift' (Kapoor, 2008, p. 90) will be investigated in an effort to identify the social and ideological impact of the gift- based relationships established by Free the Children. Kapoor (2008) suggests, 'the paradox of the gift is thus its promise of unburdened generosity, yet its tendency towards economic and symbolic reward' (p.77). A perfect example of Kapoor's observation, Free the Children continually emphasizes the organization's generosity without any mention of possible benefits received for these actions. A veil of altruism has successfully 5

obscured any notions of rewards deriving from acts of gift giving. However, as many theorists concerned with the gift have shown, there certainly are rewards for the gift and the philanthropic gift is no exception. The discussion that follows intends to justify the theoretical inclusion of the financial aid and volunteer efforts coordinated by Free the Children within the process of gift based exchange, thereby beginning the discussion of how Free the Children actually benefits from the presumed selfless acts.

Beyond this act of gift-giving other fundamental components of Free the Children worthy of investigation include the organizations use of Development Discourse in promotional materials and the acts of charity promotion themselves. The process of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) will be used to identify how the structure and content of Free the Children messaging situates the organization within the broader context of Development Discourse. In their comprehensive overview of discourse theory, Marianne Jorgensen and Louise Phillips (2002) suggest that CDA serves to "shed light on the linguistic-discursive dimension of social and cultural phenomena" (p.61). Through the process of CDA, a study of texts produced by Free the Children can reveal the social and ideological dimensions that structure the organization. Written texts in combination with live events designed by the organization will provide the basis of this analysis. 6

Further analysis of these self-promotion and recruitment tactics employed by Free the Children will be supported by research on the transformative power of ritual practices. What was originally understood as specific to behaviours associated with religious life, insight into the ritual process has been extended to acts performed by large groups brought together for a common purpose, whether secular or sacred. David I. Kertzer (1988) suggests that "ritual activity is not simply one possible way of creating group solidarity; it is a necessary way" (p.62). This fundamental role of ritual practice in the process of developing and maintaining group cohesion can largely explain the emphasis Free the Children has placed on its annual gathering of youth participants. As a tool of social solidarity, 'We Day' enables Free the Children to reinforce its message, invigorate current volunteers and recruit new supporters effectively and persuasively.

These theoretical concepts of the gift, myth, Development Discourse and ritual are intended to guide this pioneer study of Free the Children in an effort to open up discussion on this widely supported and largely un-scrutinized charity. Not intended to unnecessarily vilify the organization or its actions, the discussion and analyses that follow are rather a first attempt in making visible the social and ideological impact the charity has on both the local and global community. Examining the work of Free the Children as an organization is important, and necessary because the aid it is bestowing upon the 7

international community is serving to perpetuate a number of myths including: aid as a gift, the gift as free and unselfish and even a myth of Craig himself, and the 'shameless idealism' upon which Free the Children has been founded. Given the broad reach of the organization and its affiliates, it is critical that we no longer allow the presumed altruistic motivations of a young boy to be extended to an entire organization. Supported by social theory and texts produced by the organization itself, this research is put forward in attempt to begin the process of breaking down the shield of idealism that has, thus far, protected the organization from analysis.

A (Brief) History of International Development

This brief discussion on the complicated nature of international development and foreign aid will provide a foundation upon which the significant impact of the work of Free the Children can be understood. Although international volunteer efforts like those encouraged by Free the Children, and international aid provided by government organizations more generally seem commonplace within western policies and practices, both are products of very recent political and economic developments. While the first cases of institutional support for the poor can be traced back to the 19th century, the practice of international aid that exists today was established only as recently as the postwar 1940's. Prior to this time, international poverty was 8

understood from a colonial perspective, whereby the 'natives' were considered to be intellectually inferior and therefore fundamentally incapable of economic progress (Escobar, 1997, p.22). With the rise of capitalism in the western nations came a new understanding of international poverty. In an effort to maintain or assert power, the superpowers that emerged during the cold war issued what was labeled Official Development Assistance (ODA) to countries that are considered poor. The aid provided to these nations became an incredibly useful tool for promoting political and economic agendas internationally (Stokke, 1996, p. 20). While some countries were driven largely by their commitment to international peace, the role that aid played in Unites States' rapid rise to a global power cannot be ignored (Escobar, 1997, p. 21). Certainly aid was, and continues to be, a means by which the national interests are pursued. Significant amounts of aid are rarely distributed to the world's poorest countries, rather the majority of ODA is distributed strategically to nations based on economic and ideological interests of the donor country.

As Arturo Escobar (1997) indicates, it was not until this post-war period in the late 1940's and early 1950's that an understanding of the 'third world' came into the general consciousness. Three distinct ideological worlds were established and firmly entrenched by the 1950's, with the 'first world' comprised of the free industrialized nations while the communist industrialized 9

nations made up the 'second world' and the poor, non-industrialized nations occupied the 'third world' (Escobar, 1997, p. 31). As the United States sought to express its superiority internationally, promoting democracy by intervening in the political affairs of poorer nations became an incredibly useful as the war between east and west, first and second world became waged in the domain of the third.

International Development Gives Rise to Development Discourse According to Escobar (1997) this sudden concern with the political and economic state of the world's poorest countries brought with it entirely new discourses. Development of the third world became "a space for the systematic creation of concepts, theories and practices" (Escobar, 1997, p. 39) which combined to create a Discourse of Development. As the industrialized nations sought to define, categorize and justify all aspects of their aid efforts, they effectively put into place a Discourse that began to shape the social reality of first/third world relations. Driven by notions of progress and modernization, the western world began its mission to modernize the indigenous populations of third world countries (Escobar, 1997). This Discourse of Development, then, is a way in which these political and economic interventions came to be understood. As a "discursive practice that sets the rules of the game: who can speak, from what points of view, with what authority and according to what criteria of expertise" (Escobar, 1997, p. ??

41), the Development Discourse established during this era was predominantly patriarchal, ethnocentric and technocratic. As a result, little concern was given to the social and cultural impact of development, as it was understood largely as "technical interventions intended to deliver some "badly needed" goods to "target" a population" (Escobar, 1997, p.44). Along with this trend of development came a never before seen interest in research about the third world, as individuals and organizations travelled en mass into these countries to document anything and everything they observed. While these analyses largely influenced international perceptions of the third world, the findings were not without bias. The perceptions of the indigenous people were largely influenced by the social constructions put in place by the discourse used to describe them (Escobar, 1997). Development professionals began to identify the indigenous people of the third world as plagued by poverty and hunger, as uneducated and illiterate, and above all, in desperate need of help, qualities that remain to this day as key signifiers of what have come to be labeled 'underdeveloped' societies.

This notion of 'underdevelopment', first used in the 1949 by US President Harry Truman, was immediately and wholeheartedly accepted by the American public and became the foundation upon which first and third world relations were built. In fact, while there are many definitions of development, and many debates have been waged as to what should be 11

included or excluded from a proper definition, all can certainly agree that development "connote(s) at least one thing: to escape from this "undignified condition called underdevelopment" (Sachs, 1997, p.7). Gilbert Rist (2007) suggests even the word 'development' itself is challenged and problematic, as there are fundamental assumptions that come with this term, including the notion that more is necessarily better and the notion that progress is inherently positive. While generally assumed to be a natural process, Rist (2007) contends that the concept of development itself "consists of a set of practices which are woven into the fabric of Western culture [and] are specific to it" (p.1 1), thereby arguing that there is nothing inherently natural about notions of progress or development within the cultures of the Global South themselves.

Within this heavily constructed Discourse of Development exist many terms and which are widely used yet largely contested (Cornwall, 2007). In her essay 'Buzzwords and fuzzwords: deconstructing Development Discourse' Andrea Cornwall (2007) explores the 'development lexicon' in an effort to show how the language used within the discourse of development shapes the act of development itself. While the general concepts represent widely held beliefs, there is little agreement as to how these concepts can best be put into practice (Cornwall, 2007). In fact, Cornwall suggests the power of these terms lies within their fundamentally vague nature. Without ¡2

strict definitions, these 'buzzwords' can be employed in numerous ways to meet a variety of objectives, which allows Development Discourse as a whole to be flexible, all encompassing and, most importantly, incredibly difficult to critique.

Within the practice of Development Discourse, Andrea Cornwall (2007) identifies a number of 'buzzwords' that evoke such inherently positive qualities they are nearly impossible to question, from 'poverty eradication' to 'community' and from 'participation' to 'good governance', one would be hard pressed to disagree with these concepts (p.472). She further identifies concepts such as 'social capital', 'gender' and 'empowerment' which have limited reach in terms of intelligibility, while there are those that would be familiar to a wide audience including 'globalization', 'security', 'faith-based', and 'peace-building'. Each term explored by Cornwall has fundamental values entrenched within them, yet specific and exact definitions are largely unobtainable. As a result, different concepts and values can be inferred through the use of the word, although the meaning of the term itself remains largely ambiguous (Cornwall, 2007). These buzzwords Cornwall explores are accommodating, easily accepted, at times illusory but consistently loaded with implicit assumptions. The danger of these buzzwords lies in the way in which they "appear to rise 'above' ideology, (yet) they are densely populated with ideological projects and positions" (Cornwall, 2007, p.478). The multifarious 13

nature of these terms makes it difficult to identify their ideological nature without close attention to the context, position and the social and political actors involved (Cornwall, 2007). Cornwall suggests there are several methods through which the terms can be reclaimed, reinvigorated in an effort to define the practice of development and then concludes her discussion with the insistence that these reflections on language are critical. She suggests the development of a completely new system may be necessary, as it would allow us to accurately and concretely define these "world-making projects" that are the central focus of Development Discourse (Cornwall, 2007, p.481).

The discussion of Development Discourse 'buzzwords' presented by Cornwall and Rist provides insight into the politically charged nature of development itself, and will be further explored in the analysis of Free the Children texts that follows. The inability to arrive at concrete definitions of many of these key terms Cornwall discusses both reflects and sustains the mixed motives inherent in foreign aid and international development (Sogge, 2002). Although nations and individual donors support international communities in different ways for entirely distinct reasons, they both employ the same language of Development to explain their actions. In doing so, Development Discourse has become a tool through which political motivations of foreign aid are camouflaged by a more optimistic perception of assistance. This façade produced by Development Discourse that suggests 14

only genuine intentions and admits only positive results has, to a degree, enabled Free the Children to elude substantial critique. Understanding how this charitable organization has developed a largely impenetrable reputation as a positive force in the promotion of health and education overseas is an important component of this analysis. Prior to delving into the analysis, however, we must begin with a complete overview of the organization itself.

Freeing the Children: A Canadian Initiative

In the Beginning: A Noble Goal to 'Free the Children' On April 19, 1995 The Associated Press ran a story about Iqbal Masih, a boy who was sold by his parents into slavery when he was only four years old. When finally free, following six years spent shackled to a carpet-weaving loom, Iqbal began a crusade to speak out against child labour practices. Unfortunately, the intent of this news story was not simply to praise the activism of Iqbal but rather it was a story of memoriam. Iqbal had been gunned down and killed earlier that week while riding his bike with friends. It was largely assumed that his death was related to his activism and his willingness to speak out against the carpet industry, which relied heavily on child labour (The Associated Press, 1995). This story of Iqbal and his untimely death at age 12 caught Craig Kielburger's attention when it ran in his local newspaper. Craig, himself only twelve years old, read the story of Iqbal 15

and was shocked to learn of this boy's incredibly difficult life, and untimely death. With a number of unanswered questions running through his mind and inspired to learn more about this world he knew nothing about, Craig's mission began (Free the Children, 2009d). Initially, it was research on child labour and the mistreatment of children that Craig could hardly imagine and certainly not understand based on his own life experiences. After doing significant research, Craig began reaching out to his fellow classmates, educating them about Iqbal's unfortunate fate and the continued plight of many other children like Iqbal. Today, Free the Children is the "largest network of children helping children" in the world, a largely successful federally registered not-for-profit in both Canada and the United States, raising more than 19 million dollars in 2008 alone (Free the Chldren, 2009h).

The story of 12-year-old Craig Kielburger flipping through the newspaper in search of the comics when he was confronted by the story of Iqbal Masih has successfully become entrenched as sort of mythology of Free the Children. Both inspiring and emotionally compelling, the stories of Craig and Iqbal are largely responsible for the incredible amount of support Free The Children has earned. Through the telling and re-telling of Craig's moment of inspiration, the organization continually leverages the presumed innocence and idealism of this 12-year-old boy. A virtually uncontestable case for the work Free the Children does and they ways in which they do it is built 16

upon this romanticized belief in youthful virtue. Few people have openly addressed the fact that the impact of this young boy, inspired by a newspaper headline and motivated by his 'shameless idealism' could possibly be anything but positive. Now, 15 years after the first group of children gathered together to raise awareness for child labour, more than 350,000 youth are engaged by Free the Children annually and upwards of 19 million dollars is raised to support international development projects. By numbers alone the results Free the Children has achieved allow the organization to be considered a success. However, as outlined earlier, there are numerous factors that must be taken into consideration when discussing the impact and efficacy of international development projects. These factors extend beyond vital statistics to issues of project sustainability and local cultural preservation, and are reflected within the larger issues of ideology and hegemony, the cultivation of mythic heroes and the complicated nature of the charitable gift.

Surely not the first non-governmental organization to take up the issue of human rights, child labour or global health, Free the Children was preceded by a number of Canadian organizations combating 'poverty' and 'injustice' around the world. From the modest beginnings of the Red Cross in 1909, when the Canadian contingent was considered a subsidiary of the global health movement spearheaded by the US, Britain, France, Italy and Japan, humanitarian organizations with a more diverse focus than first aid and 17

emergency assistance began appearing in the 1950's-1960's. During this time, Canadian branches of international organizations were established including World Vision, UNICEF, Amnesty International, and Oxfam, in addition to numerous grassroots, Canadian based organizations. More recently, in what may be seen as the beginning of a re-emergence of humanitarian organizations, Médecins Sans Frontières / Doctors Without Borders, an organization committed to providing medical support internationally, established a Canadian office in 1991 . When the group of 12 youth from Thornhill Ontario decided that they would work together to 'free the children' in 1995, they were in good company with these and many other Canadian organizations committed to supporting the international community. However, unlike these organizations, which have been the subject of many journal articles, op-ed pieces and full-length books investigating, supporting and sometimes critiquing the work they have done in the name of charity1, there is limited literature available on the work of Free the Children2.

Regarded as financially responsible, and relatively transparent in terms of mission and goals, this network of children helping children has developed from a modest social group run out of a Canadian home, into a multi-million dollar charity operating in both Canada and the US. Initially focused on advocating for children's rights, Free the Children has evolved into a charity

1 A list of supporting documents is available -journal articles, books, newspaper articles which assess the efficacy of different Not-For-Profits s in Canada and the US. 2 This does not include the books published by the organization itself and through its affiliate Me to We Publishing. 18

with the aggressive mission to free all children from poverty and exploitation through education and development programs (Free the Children, 2009h). These goals are pursued through a combined local-global approach which engages more than 350,000 North American youth each year, while more than 50,000 youth are educated daily in Free the Children Schools located in 45 countries as diverse as Ecuador, India, Kenya and China. Leadership programs have been developed to engage and empower Canadian and American youth to become globally minded citizens, and in turn, increase support for charities like Free the Children through the encouraged fundraising and volunteer projects. The engagement and participation of North American youth is a key component to the Free the Children structure, as the organization remains steadfast in their mission to be the largest network of children helping children through education. Today, 60% of Free the Children's annual revenue comes from youth fundraising initiatives. More than 3000 youth are actively engaged in local Free the Children volunteer programs while 500 schools are integrating Free the Children created social justice program into the planned curriculum (Free the Children, 2009h). As the organization has expanded in scope and abilities, the basic concept of children helping children remains the organization's hallmark, even as founder and main spokesperson Craig Kielburger has personally outgrown youth status. 19

Me to We: Reading, Watching and Wearing the Movement Following the success of Free the Children, and In support of ¡ts international endeavors, Marc and Craig Kielburger have also developed a multifaceted revenue generating 'social enterprise' which sells ethically sourced products and markets unique experiences to the 'socially conscious' consumer. From music to t-shirts, leadership camps to international volunteer trips, Me to We, provides products and services that appeal to 'We minded' individuals. Through a profit-sharing initiative, Me to We provides a portion of all sales to Free the Children in order to offset the charity's administration costs. According to the social enterprise's mission statement, every aspect of Me to We has been designed to provide opportunities, experiences and products that help improve the world while fitting within a young person's daily life (Me to We, 2009a). Effectively, Marc and Craig Kielburger have taken their philosophy of 'being the change' from concept to consumable product by successfully packaging the movement they started with Free the Children into socially responsible commodity products produced by Me to We.

Comprised of a number of initiatives aimed at providing opportunities, experiences and products to ethical consumers, Me to We is guided by the six core principles of (1) Inspiring, (2) Enlightening, supporting (3) International communities, operating in an (4) Eco-Friendly manner, ensuring all products are (5) Ethically Manufactured and arguably most importantly, (6) 2ü

providing support to Free the Children (Me to We1 2010a). Me to We offers experiences and commodities alike; from leadership training, public speaking tours, and volunteer trips, to books, DVDs, music and a clothing line; everything Me to We promotes is focused upon the central belief that a business can provide consumers with "choices that can truly change the world (Me to We, 2009a). While the profit sharing model set up to benefit Free the Children is what sets Me to We apart from purely capitalist enterprises, it is not the only way through which Me to We is connected to Free the Children. In fact, the charity influences many, if not all, of the different Me to We initiatives.

Every Me to We speaker has a direct affiliation with Free the Children, either as a current or past staff member or volunteer. It is not unreasonable to assume that these experiences would have an impact and likely play a role in the motivational messages that each speaker shares with his/her audience. A less overt example of the deep affiliation of the organization would be how Me to We Leadership focuses on educating and encouraging youth to resist social inequalities and injustice. With the intent to help youth "stand tall, speak out and discover the best within themselves" (Me To We, 2010b), the mission of these leadership-training programs are closely aligned with the stated intent of Free the Children which strives to "free children from the idea that they are powerless to change the world" (Free the Children, 2009e). Finally, 21

Me to We Books is likely has the most overt connection not only to Free the Children but also to the personal message of Marc and Craig Kielburger, as seven of the eight books published by Me to We Books were co-authored by the brothers. Finally, the other components of the Me to We social enterprise, including DVDs, Music, and Style focus largely on the eco-friendly and ethical manufacturing principles while providing 50% of all proceeds earned from the sale price directly to Free the Children.

Although run independently, the philosophical and administrative overlap of these two organizations is significant. Founded and lead by the executive vision of Marc and Craig Kielburger, both organizations share the same staff training and housing facilities, while the head offices in Toronto are located only doors apart (the separation likely precipitated by government regulation rather than administrative decision). In 2009, Me to We staff provided more than 22,000 hours of labour, training and consulting services to Free the Children (Me to We, 2009a), further emphasizing the interconnected nature of the two organizations. In total, Me to We contributed more than one million dollars in cash and in-kind services to Free the Children in 2009 (Me to We, 2009a), and has reportedly helped to decrease Free the Children's administrative costs by 18% since inception in 2005. Given that Me to We commits to providing 50% of the annual net revenue after tax, a donation of 400,000 dollars to Free the Children provides 22

an indication that this small grassroots business is doing well during its freshmen years. Beyond this significant financial support, in 2009 alone, Me to We also facilitated more than 1,300 Me to We volunteer trips (Wingrove, 2010), which provide direct support to the six different 'Adopt-a-Village' programs currently being run by Free the Children.

While great effort has been made to ensure that Free the Children and Me to We are legally distinct organizations, the two organizations are at the very least ideologically aligned. There is perhaps no greater example of the integration of these two organizations than 'We Day', the signature event of Free the Children. Intended to celebrate the power of youth while inspiring all participants to become socially engaged citizens, 'We Day' promotes tangible acts that participants can take in order to create a better world. In this single event, the entire Kielburger empire is brought together. Me to We speakers, musicians, and authors address the crowd and Me to We products are available for sale while all those in attendance are encouraged to fundraise for and consider participating in one of Free the Children's international building projects. The Gift and International Development

Although significant progress has been made since the early days of 'civilizing' missions in the third world, yet concerns over international development projects, like those promoted by Free the Children and Me to We, remain. The discourse has shifted over time as buzzwords have fallen in and out of fashion. The top-down approach that was once heavily emphasized has been replaced with a bottom-up method, as notions of 'participation' and 'empowerment' have become the latest focus. As lian Kapoor (2008) indicates, within the discourse of development and foreign aid, the aid itself is continually represented as a type of gift, wherein the global north is situated as a benevolent donor and the Global South a helpless victim in need of salvation (p.79). In addition to this rich/poor binary, Kapoor also suggests the opposing concepts of expert/novice, kind/needy, self- sufficient/subordinate, all of which are used often within the discourse of foreign aid as gift. Kapoor admits these binaries are incredibly stereotypical, yet he suggests it is the superficial nature of these relationships that makes the discourse of aid as gift powerful (p. 79). The terms work together in such a way that each becomes a sort of code for it's opposite, whereby one explicit statement allows for many other implicit messages to be simultaneously conveyed. This ability to say one thing and imply something completely opposite emphasizes the power of discourse. Within Development Discourse 24

itself, Kapoor suggests that this power is exemplified through the way aid is continually understood to be a sort of unconditional gift while the equally accurate understanding of aid as a conditional exchange is fully concealed. Through a continual emphasis on 'aid as gift' Development Discourse successfully denies any perception of the conditional natures of aid, whether they be economic, political, or ideological. While aid is continually constructed as a pure act of generosity, theoretical understandings of the gift indicate this could not be further from the truth. When a gift is given, a relationship based upon obligation and reciprocation is established between donor and recipient. While it may seem paradoxical, the gift may even prove to be more beneficial to the donor than the recipient. According to Kapoor (2008), "foreign aid as 'gift' is an ideological construction" (p. 90), which serves to cover over the more productive aspects of the gift. In fact, he further argues that foreign aid actually involves everything but the altruistic 'free' gift. A brief overview of the theoretical understandings of the gift will provide a necessary introduction to this deceptive nature of the free gift, and allow for a better understanding of the implications associated with Free the Children's emphasis on providing un-interested gifts to the international community. 25

Theories of the Gift

As the first to successfully apply ethnographic data in order to develop a theory of social relations, Marcel Mauss has been both congratulated and criticized at length for his contributions to the fields of anthropology and sociology. A number of academics have since taken up issue with the gift, and through anthropological, sociological and even economic approaches they have sought to better understand the meaning and motivation of the gift, and the concept of obligatory reciprocity. Gift giving is typically understood very simply as the physical exchange of material objects yet the concept of the gift also "has a wealth of cultural, social and psychological meanings as well, all referring to the abstract, symbolic functions of gift giving" (Komter, 2005, p. 2). A concrete understanding of the cultural and social meanings of the gift must begin with a survey of the prominent theories of the gift. Beginning with the seminal essay The Gift' by Marcel Mauss, which has been hailed as the 'first systematic and comparative study of the widespread custom of gift exchange' (Evans-Pritchard, 1966, p. ix) a number of theories will be explored in an effort to understand the central themes, issues and concerns related to gift theory. It is crucial to include concepts that have been established as essential components of the discourse of the gift and the equally valuable views that are still heavily debated. The logic of the gift has been a major topic of inquiry due the unique perspective it provides into the ways individuals and groups bring about and maintain personal relationships. 26

Understanding the circulation of goods and services according to the practices of gift and counter gift provides a theoretical opposition to neoliberal theories of the market. Through gift exchange, objects and services are transferred between individuals not because of their calculated value; in fact the actual object itself holds little value in the process of gift exchange. Instead, it is the process of giving and receiving gifts itself that is important, and not the objects exchanged, as the action serves to maintain social relationships. The intent of this literature review, then, Is to both compare and interrogate the predominant theories of the gift in an effort to identify how these concepts shape the logic of the gift and can provide insight into social interactions in a modern context.

Every survey of literature on the gift begins with a discussion of Marcel Mauss, and his essay published in 1925. A leading figure in French sociology during the early 1900's, Mauss has greatly influenced both the field of sociology and anthropology with the publication of his "Essai sur le Don" (Essay of the Gift) in the French Journal Année Sociologique. Concerned with the complex nature of gift giving, contracts and obligations, he set out to understand such practices by studying the cultural practices of primitive societies. Through a number of separate ethnographic studies, Mauss successfully identified the unique set of rules governing practices of exchange within each community. 27

Mauss' approach to studying gift exchange was comprehensive, as he focused on a very specific societies or communities, and then interrogated all available data thoroughly. Central to Mauss' approach is the understanding that the practice of exchange can only be fully understood if viewed as a complex social practice that both influences and is influenced by the larger societal context within which it occurs (Mauss, 1966, p.1 ). Through a comparative study of the custom of gift exchange within different primitive societies, Mauss successfully identifies the ways in which gift giving helps to form social ties between individuals and even between groups of people. Evidence of this social bond which develops through the giving and receiving of gifts provides the foundation for Mauss' final conclusion, that the gift is a type of contract which, upon receipt, obligates you to reciprocate in kind (Mauss, p. 11).

The central focus of Mass' study is a better understanding the nature of the gift and yet he manages to complete the work without clearly identifying the specific nature or characteristics of the gift. In fact, one of the most significant criticisms of Mauss' essay is this paradoxical omission, wherein he writes an entire essay on a concept that is never clearly defined (Derrida, 1992; Testart 1998). Although the concept of a gift is widely understood as something handed to another free of charge, Mauss' omission is important, for as Alain Testart argues, in failing to define the gift, Mauss implies that the 2d

gift and the practice of exchange are indistinguishable from one another (Testart, 1998, p.97). This is problematic, of course, because if a gift is equivalent to an exchange, then fundamentally the gift is not given freely or without a price to the recipient. Instead, the recipient is required to return the gift, as would be expected in the process of exchange, were objects or services of similar value change hands. Mauss focuses exclusively on providing empirical observations of "three obligations: giving, receiving and returning" (Mauss, 1966, p. 37), which further speaks to this focus on exchange, rather than the gift. While seeking to identify this logic governing this social interaction, Mauss seems to overlook the fundamental instrument of the exchange, the object from which he began, the gift itself.

Through the observation of social practices of communities in Polynesia, Melanesia and Western North America, Mauss (1966) identified 'potlatch' and 'prestation' as precursors to the model of market exchange present in modern society (p.1). Mauss defines prestations are phenomena which are in theory voluntary, disinterested and spontaneous, but are in practice are obligatory and interested (p.1). Potlatch is a term Mauss borrows from American authors in order to describe a type of agonistic ritual of prestations, where the struggle for position within the social hierarchy is acted out through the giving and receiving of gifts (p.4-5). In contrast to the economically self-interested practice of the market economy, generosity and 29

honour formed the basis of these primitive examples of exchange (p. 18). Potlatch and prestation were based upon social bonds established between individuals through the obligation to reciprocate. Resulting from the social obligation to reciprocate the gifts provided through these elaborate ceremonies, Mauss concluded that the process of gift and repayment is virtually constant, as with every gift received one automatically felt compelled to return the gift, resulting in a continual practice of give and take (p.33). Given Mauss does not make a distinction between process of exchange and the gift, he insists on an existing social obligation to reciprocate the received gift. According to Mauss, the gift links the people involved "the received object in general, engages, links magically, religiously, morally, juridically, the giver and the receiver" (Schrift, 1997, p.29). Through the gift, the donor is able to exercise power over the recipient, as the simple act of providing a gift compels the recipient to both graciously accept it and make a return gift. Upon receiving a gift, the recipient is placed in a position of indebtedness toward the donor, required to make a return gift in kind, sometimes a gift of increased value is required, as the first gift is perceived to have incurred interest during the time between receipt and repayment, as seen in the practice of potlatch in Native North American communities (Mauss, 1966). The act of gift giving, then, can be seen as fundamentally productive, for as the gift is received a debt is incurred, a debt which the recipient is obligated to repay. In giving a gift, the donor is ultimately benefiting himself, as through bo

the social norms established in these communities, the repayment of the gift is guaranteed. An unequal power dynamic unfolds through this process benefiting the donor, for we must always repay that which we receive, and the return gift must be of greater value ( (Mauss, 1966).

Testart (1998), Derrida (1992) and others would argue that this obligation to return the gift negates the gift altogether, for the gift can never yield something for the donor, and if it does provide benefit to the donor, it can no longer be considered a gift. Testart provides instances of gifts that do not require reciprocation, including providing change to beggars on the street, or making charitable donations to not-for-profit agencies. Furthering his argument of this obligation to reciprocate, Testart outlines five different situations in which an obligation does exist, however it ranges from a feeling of obligation among friends, social sanctions within peer groups to seizure of goods and, in a case of pre-colonial society, forced slavery for delinquent repayment. Generally speaking, Testart (1998) argues that in instances where a return is demanded, the exchange is no longer within the domain of the gift, but rather that of debt and credit (p. 104). It is Testart's belief, then, that most of the examples which Mauss provides where the return gift is demanded in a matter beyond simple feelings of social obligation, the gift no longer exists, and rather it is simply a process of exchange, trade, debt and credit. ¦> 31

Further supporting Testart's (1998) argument; Mauss directly links the gift and notions of generosity with those of self-interest within primitive societies (Mauss, 1966). He uses the examples of Native American tribes in the North West coast to show how a given gift necessitates repayment and results in a degree of profit for the donor, whether in the form of a social alliance with another tribe or simply an economic gain (Mauss, 1 966, p. 71 ). In essence, he successfully outlines the process of exchange, yet never identifies how, and when, an object is given over to another free of charge and without obligation. Effectively, Mauss' essay argues that the gift (in the basic sense of something given without interest and free of charge) does not exist because every gift comes with the obligation to reciprocate. Jacques Derrida (1992) picks up this exact concept in his critique of Mauss, as he suggests the gift can only exist in direct contrast to economic processes, and therefore within the practice of exchange, there can be no gift.

With his suggestion of the obligation to reciprocate every gift received is an obligation that is propelled forward by the spirit of the gift. While Mauss focused on this unseen essence of the gift, his contemporary Claude Lévi- Strauss (1997) was quick to take issue with this mystical explanation. For Mauss, the spirit of the gift, which he labeled the 'hau' explained why people returned gifts, Lévi-Strauss argued instead, that hau is not itself the reason for 32

repaid gifts, but it is rather a symbolic understanding of an underlying social process (Lévi-Strauss, 1997, p. 61). Lévi-Strauss emphasized instead of a magical element intrinsic within the gift, the notion of reciprocity as a means to maintain complex social relations. While Mauss approached the process of gift exchange as a set of fragmented actions connected through the mystical process of the hau, Lévi-Strauss instead suggested these acts of giving, receiving and repaying were not individual actions but different parts of a whole singular system, and therefore did not require a mystical explanation to unite them (Sahlins, 1997, p. 74).

Jacques Derrida is one of a number of critics of Mauss' work, concerned mainly with Mauss' lack of exploration of the nature of the gift itself, as separate and unique from the process of exchange. In response to this omission, Derrida's Given Time: 1. Counterfeit Money (1992) addresses the definition and concept of the gift exclusively. Derrida frames his theory around this major critique, while Mauss focuses on exchange and virtually 'speaks of everything but the gift' (p. 24) Derrida chooses to uncover the exact nature of the gift as separate from exchange, obligatory reciprocation and trade.

In direct contrast to Mauss' theory of the gift and exchange, Derrida argues the gift is fundamentally 'aneconomic', and cannot fit within the circle 33

of economic exchanges (Derrida, 1992, p. 7). While he admits the gift may be related to the circle of economy, he clearly identifies the gift in no way contributes to the process. He is able to come to this conclusion based upon a rigorous assessment of the gift through which he concludes there are four requirements for the gift to exist (Jenkins, 1998, p. 84). First, there must be no reciprocity, for any return to the donor enters the gift into an economic circle of interest and repayment. Second, the recipient must not even acknowledge the gift, as any sort of recognition can be perceived as repayment. Similarly, the donor must not recognize the gift, as self- congratulation can be perceived as repayment as well. Finally, the thing itself that is given must not appear as a gift, for as soon as it does, it enters into the economic circle of reciprocity (Jenkins, 1998; Godbout, 2000). These four characteristics are intrinsic to the gift, and together they allow us to understand and contemplate the gift.

Derrida (1992) chooses to problematize the concept of the gift in order to understand how it can be that the gift can only take place when not taking place (p. 35). The gift, according to Derrida, can only exist when it does not exist, and it becomes fundamentally impossible. While recognizing that these criteria are contradictory, Derrida insists, "for there to be a gift, it is necessary that the gift not even appear, that it not be perceived or received as a gift" (p. 16). The hidden nature of the gift is an absolute necessity, because once the 34

gift appears as a gift, it enters into a symbolic economic structure of give and take, and can no longer be considered an 'uninterested' gift. Once the gift is acknowledged, the recipient becomes indebted to the donor and the obligation to reciprocate the gift exists, as Mauss first indicated. Even if the recipient does not acknowledge the gift as such, the simple intention to give by the donor establishes an expectation of return for the gift. Once a gift is given out of obligation, what is handed over can no longer be considered a gift as defined by Derrida. A gift must be purely generous, unmotivated, without reason, unforeseeable, the effect of nothing and completely unconditional. It seems much of what we consider today to be a gift would certainly not meet these standards set out by Derrida.

This somewhat radical concept of the impossible gift stands in stark contrast to the reciprocity-based gift Mauss originally proposed. Derrida (1992) suggests that what Mauss speaks of in his Essai is not the gift at all, and Mauss deals instead with everything but the gift, and ultimately discusses the process of exchange, rather than the giving of uninterested gifts (p. 24). If this is the case, Mauss needs to also address the question of whether an object can continue to be considered a gift once it enters into the circle of exchange. According to Derrida's definition of 'gift', this would be impossible, for any object existing within exchange is most certainly not a gift. In what at first appears to be a slight digression, Derrida provides a brief 35

summary of Baudelaire's short story "Counterfeit Money". However, it is through the study of these two characters and the act of almsgiving, that Derrida is able to ultimately delineate that which does and does not constitute a gift. Counterfeit money in this story becomes a misrepresented gift, and as a result serves as the perfect vehicle through which Derrida can begin to identify what the gift is. Derrida comes to understand the gift as something that is without reason, a chance event, unforeseeable, purely generous and completely voluntary. However, true to the debate waged upon the pages of his book, even in the final paragraphs, Derrida confesses to still be somewhat unsure and the nature of the gift. He even goes so far as to preface his final claims with "The gift, if there is any..." (p. 162). It seems while critiquing Mauss' grave omissions within his Essai surla Don, Derrida is able to clearly determine what the gift is not. What exactly the gift is and whether if does exist however, remain questions to be further explored.

Providing an alternative view of the gift theory in direct contrast and often as a strong critique of Mauss' theory of the gift, David Cheal (1988) explores the system within which the gift exists, which he names the gift economy. In an effort to substantiate the need for a sociological study of the gift to compliment the significant research by anthropologists, Cheal provides the gift economy as a conceptual framework through which the gift exchange can be analyzed as a social interaction (Cheal, 1988, p. 9). While a number 36

of theorists suggest that the gift exists outside the economic exchange system, Cheal argues the gift is a part of the economic system, yet has unique characteristics differentiating it from the exchange system (p. ix). The defining characteristic of the gift that differentiates the gift economy from other systems is the fundamentally redundant nature of the gift (p. 12). Cheal explains, gifts are typically perceived to be a level of excess, where the donor goes beyond any sense of obligation and provides something over and above what is necessary. Additionally, gifts can be seen as redundant in the sense that are something the recipient would have provided for himself if necessary, and as a result provide no additional benefit to the recipient (p. 13). It would seem then, that if the gift itself is redundant, then it must be the act of giving which serves a purpose, and indeed this is exactly what Cheal argues. He suggests that gift transactions are tools used for constructing social worlds, and maintaining social relationships (p. 16). While it may be appropriate to label the gift as redundant from an economic or trade perspective, the social value of the gift is certainly not redundant. On the contrary, the gift is that which helps to strengthen and sustain social bonds.

Admitting the significant impact Marcel Mauss' work has had on the social sciences, David Cheal (1988) also insists Mauss' theories focus too much on antiquity and thereby reject the impact of modern day context. In an effort to address this perceived flaw in Mauss' theory, Cheal posits the notion 37

of a gift economy to be necessary in order to adequately understand the gift (p. 4). Positioning his theory of the gift in direct opposition to theories of political economy, Cheal suggests an alternative concept of a moral economy. Where political economy is concerned with the material flow of gift transfers as a form of social capital, moral economy emphasizes the ritual dimensions of gift transactions as events that are performed. While the political economy follows conventional economic laws and is concerned with the larger world of corporations and the market, the moral economy is concerned with everyday life in which we live and interact with our families and friends. Understandably, Cheal suggests that the gift is best comprehended through moral economy, as gift transactions are truly outcomes of the generalized structures of a moral economy (p. 39). Following this conception of a moral economy, Cheal establishes his concept of the gift economy as 'a system of redundant transactions within a moral economy, which makes possible the extended reproduction of social relations' (p. 19). Similar to Mauss' theory, Cheal believes the gift economy is governed by rules of reciprocity, through which social ties are established and maintained. With the use of data gathered in an empirical study of gift giving, he shows that gift giving is an important social behaviour that can provide insight into who gives, when and for what reason. The patterns of gift giving recorded by Cheal are intended to prove how gift transactions establish and maintain a moral economy within modern society (p. 167). While the ability to 38

apply the empirical data beyond Cheal's primary theory is limited, within this text he does successfully connect the data in ways that directly support his theory. The use of empirical data may somewhat limit the generalizability of Cheal's theory, however it does provide interesting insight into the complex motives and distribution rules governing the act of giving.

Modern theories of the gift tend to begin their studies in anthropological tradition of Mauss, Lévi-Strauss and their contemporaries, in an effort to identify modern applications of these seminal texts. While it has been argued that Mauss' focus on archaic societies resulted in the complete disregard for the modern application of his theory, some theorists do insist that there is a consistent, 'implicit comparison, or contrast, between the archaic institutions he is writing about and our own" (Evans-Pritchard, 1966, p. ix). Depending on their perspective, a number of texts have been published in recent history either to meet this perceived lack of modern application of Mauss' theory, or to simply further what he began in the first half of the 20th century. Providing numerous perspectives and varying approaches to the historical texts, countless essays and entire books have been published on the topic of the gift. Alan Schrift (1997) edited a compilation of works, bringing together historical documents from Lévi- Strauss, Mauss, and Emile Benveniste along with critiques and responses to Mauss' Essai sur le don, in addition to a selection from contemporary 39

theorists whose diverse approaches to the gift reflect the variety of ways in which the logic of the gift is currently being applied in both the humanities and social sciences. Through this unique combination of works, Schrift successfully raises the question which encircles the study of the gift, namely "should the analysis focus on the object given, on the relationship established between the giver and the receiver, or on the inextricable interconnections between these object(s) and relationship(s)?" (p. 3). Many of the works included in Schrift's anthology have provided crucial background and insight into the work of Marcel Mauss and Claude Lévi-Strauss, while the more recent works seek to answer these central questions by exploring the motivations originally suggested by Mauss, namely the joy of giving, thereby shifting the focus of the theory from the logic of the gift toward an ethic of generosity (Schrift, p. 20).

Focusing more so on Schrift's third question of the gift, Jacques Godbout (2000b) reflects on the gift and the process of gift exchange. He identifies this process as an incredibly complex system responsible for establishing and sustaining social connections, and it does so without a clear order or prescribed hierarchy (Godbout, 2000b, p. 202). Bringing together a number of different perspectives on the gift, Godbout's The World of the Gift (2000), illustrates this system of gift exchange based upon the three obligations of giving, receiving and repaying as outlined by Mauss. It is 4Ü

Godbout's conviction that this system is ever present in modern society, contrary to Mauss' suggestion that the market system may dominate and effectively extinguish the system of gift exchange. Godbout suggests rather than one system dominating the other, the systems of the market, the gift and the state are instead largely complimentary, and co-exist in contemporary culture (p.207).

In the introduction to his compilation of essays Gifts and Interests (2000) Antoon Vandevelde describes the volume as somewhat of a 'conceptual map' with which one can approach and understand the gift in contemporary society (p. 1 ). As with the other volumes previously described, Vandevelde begins with critiques of Mauss' theory, which then leads into current approaches to the gift from a variety of academics including anthropologists, sociologists, and economists. Especially useful in understanding theories of the gift is another contribution from Jacques Godbout, his essay, Homo Donator versus Homo Oeconomicus. Published after his previously discussed World of the Gift, this essay attacks the privileged paradigm of neoliberalism, which Godbout claims currently dominates our understanding of the circulation of goods and services. As with many of his contemporaries concerned with the gift, he sought to understand the motivation behind the gift. He begins by briefly exploring what he terms the two paradigms of the moment, the market model and the holistic 41

paradigm, the former which claims all behaviour to be free, and the latter which claims behaviour to be guided by social norms and external obligations (Godbout, 2000a, p. 29). The gift, with its inherent degree of unpredictability and its fundamentally non-linear relationship between donor and recipient, fails to fit within either of these systems. Instead, Godbout proposes that we each have a natural desire to give which coexists with this innate desire to receive. The gift is a 'continual play of obligation and freedom' (p. 32) whereby the individual is constrained by the obligation to return the gift, yet is free to make this reciprocal act of giving in a variety of ways, at potentially to a variety of recipients.

Finally, Mark Osteen (2002) compiled a selection of works that further interrogate a number of assumptions laid out in Mauss' Essai surla don. Questioning the basic tenets of theories of gift exchange, this collection provides varying perspectives from anthropologists, sociologists and philosophers, each interested in using methods from their fields in order to provide a unique perspective on this well studied topic. In The Question of the Gift: Essays Across Disciplines, Osteen combines multiple perspectives that question the concept of the gift as suggested by Mauss. Perspectives vary from complete dismissal of the obligation to reciprocate, to the suggestion of a reversal of the power relationship, whereby the power rests with the recipient and not the donor. Intended to be a starting point for further 42

interdisciplinary discussions of the gift, Osteen argues for the need to integrate anthropological, philosophical and sociological perspectives in order to develop a more robust theory of this phenomenon of human behaviour.

In what is virtually a direct response to Osteen's call for interdisciplinary approaches to theories of the gift, Aafke E. Komter published Social Solidarity and the Gift in 2005, with the sole intention of combining anthropological theories of the gift with sociological theories of solidarity. Both interested in notions of social ties and solidarity, sociologists focused mainly on concepts of "shared values and norms and the new forms of mutual dependency"(Komter, 2005, p. 190) while anthropologists studied on patterns of reciprocity arising from the exchange of gifts and services. Just as these theorists neglected to address the similarities across their fields, Komter notes Osteen made a similar oversight in his collection of essays, as there was a complete lack of reference to the notions of social solidarity. Concerned with addressing this deficiency of theoretical connections between gift theory and theories of social solidarity, Komter confidently states that while the two are obviously distinct, both are "related in their most fundamental and characteristic manifestations and functions"(2005, p.2) and he even goes so far as to state that the two theories are one in the same. 43

Aligning himself with Mauss' theory of reciprocity, Komter suggests that it is one of four motivations behind gift exchange, along with affection, power and self-interest or utility (2005, p. 9). Where he diverges from Mauss, however, is in his discussion of the market economy. Unlike Mauss, Komter does not perceive the gift and commodity object to be opposites, insisting the distinction is one of degree, and not kind (2005, p. 18). This is possible because, for Komter, the gift economy and market economy are not mutually exclusive, rather they are interconnected (2005, p. 19). Theorists who focus exclusively on the commodity in their discussions of economic and social structures are therefore missing a significant component of their field of study Following this line of thinking, it becomes critically important to consider the non-commercial transaction, the object given and received outside of a trade relationship, when seeking to understand existing ideologies of consumption.

Following Emerson, who proclaimed "the gift, to be true, must be the flowing of the giver unto me, correspondent to my flowing unto him" (Emerson, 1997, p. 26), Komter (2005) suggests that at the most basic level, gift giving is an act which unites individuals to one another. Social bonds are developed between the gift giver and recipient in the form of obligation felt on both sides of the transaction, for the giver is compelled to give and recipient obligated to receive. While he does admit to the donor feeling compelled to give, he clearly identifies the gift exists only when given out of free will, and 44

not dictated by an economic rule such as exchange or barter. The gift is intended to be spontaneous and essentially noneconomic act (Komter, 2005, p. 39). In addition to feeling compelled to give, recipients are also compelled to express gratitude for gifts received. Komter introduces this notion of gratitude as a necessary component within the chain of reciprocity governing the giving and receiving of gifts (2005, p. 57). As a response to the gift steeped in moral virtue, gratitude is a productive response serving, in some cases, to absolve the recipient of the debt owed the donor, or more simply identify the recipient as worthy of future gifts. The opposite is also true of a recipient's failure to express an appropriate degree of gratitude, which can produce feelings of resentment and even result in fewer gifts being given to the individual in the future. If, as Komter suggests, the essential role of gift giving is to create social ties (2005, p. 67), gratitude plays an important role in motivating and ensuring reciprocity for gifts given. In his exploration and explanation of the gift in a modern context, Komter explains the gift to be a counterpart to sacrifice, as the two are presented as the opposite ends of a spectrum, the opposing manifestations of an underlying dimension - solidarity. In fact, Komter asserts, the anthropological studies of the gift can best be understood as a theories of human solidarity (2005, p. 195). Both the gift and sacrifice yield benefits, the gift brings concrete and personal reciprocation while sacrifice brings abstract and often nonequivalent returns. The concept of reciprocity guiding the provision of gifts of the making of sacrifices is based 45

on the same fundamental motivations guiding the development of social ties and solidarity (2005, p.205).

A comprehensive overview of the literature on the gift would be virtually impossible given the variety of fields involved and the number of theorists interested in understanding the meaning and motivation of the gift. However the brief overview presented here is intended to provide a foundation upon which we can begin to understand the concept of the development gift. As lian Kapoor (2008) suggests in his discussion of 'Foreign Aid as G(r)ift'; the institutional gifts provided by nations, NGOs and private not-for-profit organizations can never be pure or neutral (p. 93). These gifts are fundamentally interested, and like the gifts described by these numerous theorists from Mauss to Komter, this concept of 'interest' can be found within this obligation to reciprocate. Social relationships are established and maintained through the process of giving and receiving of gifts, and this is no less the case with foreign aid and development.

The Development Gift In their study of donations to NGOs, Stirrat and Henkel (1997) suggest that while it may take many different forms and exchange hands numerous times, the development gift does establish a link between the donor from the western world and the object of aid in the Global South (p. 69). This 46

connection may appear to be neutral and disinterested given the donor does not act out of direct obligation to a specific recipient, however the gift-based relationship is quite the opposite on the receiving end of the gift. According to Stirrat and Henkel, receiving is "hedged with conditionality at best, while at worst the gift may become a form of patronage and a means of control" (p. 72). Regardless of how pure the gift may be at initiation, upon delivery it is entrenched within the ideological and political systems that govern the NGO, and as a result the recipient becomes enlisted into the systems as well. Stirrat and Henkel suggest then, that even if a gift is intended to be pure and uninterested, it will be transformed within the system of development into an interested and obligated gift (p.76). Importantly, the interested gift imposes the burden of reciprocation the intended recipient of aid, who has already been identified as poor and in need of support. Yet again the paradox of the gift appears as the gift that was originally intended to provide needed support instead worsens the position of the recipient by establishing a degree of indebtedness. While Mauss speaks of the exchange of physical objects, the exchange of development gifts is much more abstract, as money is donated, transferred and traded for services and support (which may not be quantifiable) prior to reaching the intended recipient (Stirrat & Henkel, p. 79). As a result, the form of reciprocity tends to be equally abstract, and the challenge for the recipient becomes accurately measuring the debt owed to his benefactor. Interestingly, Stirrat and Henkel suggest that this debt is not 47

intended to be paid off, for the development gift is based upon a set of relationships between rich and poor the kind and the needy, and if the need decreased, the gift could not continue (p. 80). It seems then, that the development gift is fundamentally interested and necessitates reciprocation, if for no other reason than an act of self-preservation.

The Gift of Free the Children 'Adopt-a-Village'. 'Give.' 'Provide.' 'Receive.' The language of the gift pervades the discourse of development, and in the case of each of these examples, the specific discourse of Free the Children. As Aafke E. Komter (2005) indicates in his study of social solidarity and the gift, a gift is not exclusively defined as a material object, and more importantly for the discussion that follows, he mentions volunteer work as a specific example of a nonmaterial gift (p. 123). Widely understood to be a complete contradiction, a gift often appears to be one thing (uninterested and altruistic) but is actually another (entirely self-interested). The process of gift giving does, in practice, often provide great benefit to the donor, whether it is through "the heartwarming sensation of generosity, the security of ensuring reciprocity or the delight in gaining status" (Mallios, 2006, p. 31). In the case of philanthropy and volunteerism, as liana Silber (1998) suggests, the Maussian perspective of the gift can provide great insight into the complicated and interested relationships established through the practice of modern 48

philanthropy. As Komter suggests, while volunteer work is intended to benefit the greater community it can still be understood as an interested gift; yielding benefits in the same way as gift giving within interpersonal relationships (p. 124). Although this concept of philanthropic acts as 'gift' in the Maussian sense has not received a significant amount of attention, Silber argues it does provide a useful perspective for understanding the gifting process that takes place within modern philanthropy.

While there is often an assumed altruistic motivation behind gift giving, Mauss' research and that of many scholars which follow him, shows that the gift is actually firmly entrenched within a relationship of reciprocity and is therefore largely self-serving. If this is true, then a gift cannot be understood as given freely without consequence, instead it needs to be recognized as an inherently productive action providing direct benefit to the donor. As a charitable organization focused on providing support to the international community, virtually every act the Free the Children undertakes can be understood as gift. From the time and effort of the volunteers, to the funds donated and the physical provision of materials and facilities, the gifts bestowed on rural international communities by Free the Children are numerous. While volunteer time and effort is difficult to quantify, the amount of funds distributed annually ($12 Million in 2008 alone) and the number of schools Free the Children has built since inception (more than 500) indicate 49

that the extent of the gifts provided by Free the Children is significant. There are benefits that come with the process of gift giving, including the process of establishing and maintaining social relationships. As Mauss suggests, each of these gifts must be reciprocated in order to maintain the bond that the gift creates. This means that while Free the Children gives generously the charity also benefits, and based on the size of the gifts given, the benefit is likely to be considerable. This understanding of the fundamental nature of gift giving as an act that appears altruistic yet is inherently self-beneficial is critical. Although the benefits received by Free the Children (both as an organization overall or by the individual volunteer participants) do not necessarily diminish the original gift, the overall giving process does fundamentally favour and provide tangible benefits to the gift-giver. As Mauss originally suggested, acts of gift giving, including those given by charitable organizations, exist within the circle of reciprocity wherein each gift demands a return gift. The existence of the return gift negates the ability to attribute any notion of altruism to the act of giving, and therefore brings into question the motivations underlying charitable acts.

Beyond denying any notion of intrinsic benefit in the process of gift giving, traditional discourse on the gift also tends to eliminate any concept or relation to the circle of economy. According to Derrida (1992), however, the gift is most certainly related to the circle of economy, although it is not 50

necessarily a directly contributing component. Raising more than 19 million dollars and distributing more than 12 million within the same year, Free the Children, although a charitable organization, certainly cannot deny its close connection to this circle of the economy. Although profit is not earned in the form of dividends to shareholders, Free the Children is a multi-million dollar enterprise and therefore in many ways must operate like the profit-focused companies with whom it coexists. Understanding Free the Children as directly related to the circle of economy allows for a better understand of the impact of the gifts provided by the organization. In the 2008 annual report3 Free the Children states that more than 19 million dollars were raised through their various funding avenues, and nearly $12 million of the total funds raised were then allocated to international programs through their 'Adopt-a-Village' initiatives (Free the Children, 2009h). If, as Stirrat and Henkel (1997) suggest, this type of gift can bring harm to the recipient due to the level of indebtedness felt as a direct result of the gift (p. 73), the level of debt incurred by these rural communities that are the being 'adopted' by Free the Children must be considered. In only one single year, 12 million dollars worth of aid was distributed internationally by the organization, resulting in 12 million dollars worth of debt. If the aid provided by Free the Children is directed toward communities perceived to be in great financial need, it is not

3 The annual report provides the most comprehensive overview available of Free the Children's financial statements. Given the most recent annual report published by the organization reflects data from the 2008 fiscal year, where available, figures from the 2009 fiscal year will also be discussed. 51

unreasonable to assume that these communities have no ability to repay such significant debts. Also, because Free the Children is an accredited not-for- profit organization, it can be assumed that the debt that comes with these gift cannot simply be repaid in-kind. As Derrida (1992) suggests, these gifts provided by Free the Children are fundamentally "aneconmoic" (p.7) and existing outside the traditional process of economic exchange. Although the benefits Free the Children as an organization is positioned to receive based on the gifts it bestows upon the international community cannot come in the form of monetary compensation, this does not mean the organization forfeits compensation altogether. The benefits earned from benevolent acts are not necessarily financial, and may instead come in the form of social, political or ideological allegiances or dependence. Aafke E. Komter (2005) suggests, "the theory of the gift is the theory of human solidarity" (p. 2) and, accordingly, the act of giving of gifts can be seen as an action that establishes and maintains social ties. This understanding places the gift within a symbolic system of exchange that directly influences social identities. While recognizing the differences between the abstract concept of solidarity and the material objects exchanged, Komter (2005) argues that the functions of these two concepts are obviously related. On the most fundamental level, gift giving is an act that creates social bonds through the obligation to both give and receive which is instilled within the transaction. Effectively, then, the study of the socially binding gift is also the study of social solidarity. 52

Providing examples of this concept of identity creation through gift- giving Komter suggests "through the act of gift giving one can emphasize his superior position vis-à-vis another person" and at the same time "symbolize the subordinate position of the other" (2005, p.27). Excessive gift giving, according to Komter, is a sign of power that is communicated through the gift (2005, p. 28). Often, when one perceives there to be a need for support, her/she will try to meet or exceed what is required in an effort to ensure the need is met. If Komter's observations are correct, then this tendency to provide above and beyond what is necessary in the form of a gift can actually function in a way that both helps, and harms. While the physical support is provided, the process that allows for the perceived need to be satiated emphasizes the social superiority of the gift giver by exaggerating his/her ability to meet these assumed needs. Simultaneously, the recipient of the gift is placed in a position of dependency and inferiority, as his/her inability to provide for him/herself is negated by the provisions bestowed by the donor. In the case of Free the Children, as the organization emphasizes its own worth through the number and size of gifts given (Free the Children, 2009f), it also emphasizes this degree of political or ideological power it holds over those on the receiving end of the gifts, by emphasizing the significant value of the gifts given. 53

As the co-founders and primary spokesmen for Free the Children, Marc and Craig Kielburger are arguably the two in the best position to gain benefit from symbolic return gifts offered to Free the Children in response to the organization's significant contributions. As liana Silber (1998) suggests, there are numerous rewards for philanthropic acts, including increased self- esteem, personal pleasure, and prestige among peers (p. 140). While the first two are largely personal and difficult to assess as a third party observer, the third is one of particular interest for this discussion. The Kielburger brothers have gained significant notoriety for the work they have done and continue to do with Free the Children. With over 500 schools built and more than

207,000 school and health kits provided to international communities (Free the Children, 2009f), significant return-gifts are owed to the organization for the gifts they have given. It appears that in large part, these return-gifts have been bestowed upon Marc and Craig in the form of personal prestige. As David Cheal (1988) suggests, gift giving is in fact "a process of impression management" (p. 53) through which individuals sustain specific definitions of themselves by the nature of the gifts they give. The numerous awards and accolades the Kielburger brothers have received, in addition to the icon status they have achieved in households across Canada is a good indication that the co-founders of Free the Children have certainly benefited from the work of their organization. "V. 54

In both their roles as co-founders of Free the Children, Me to We and their personal work as motivational speakers, contributing columnists or talk show guests, the public perception of the brothers is, on the whole, extremely positive. As brothers, business partners and co-founders of both Free the Children and Me to We, Marc and Craig share a number of interests and have had many common experiences, including the honour of being recognized with a number of prestigious awards for the work they have done together. Free the Children has earned local and international honours, including but not limited to the 2002 World of Children Founders Award, the 2006 World's

Children's Prize for the Rights of the Child (also know as the Children's Nobel Prize), and the 2006 Human Rights Award from the United Nations/World Association of Non-Government Organizations, all of which are awards both co-founders of the organization list in their personal biographies. (Free the Children, 2009a). Individually, the brothers have numerous accolades to their name including the prestigious honour bestowed by the Governor General of Canada as recipients of the Order of Canada (Craig invested in 2007, Marc more recently in 2010) (Free the Children, 2009a). Beyond these examples of formal recognition, Marc and Craig have also received the support of numerous cultural and political icons ranging from Mia Farrow and Archbishop Desmond Tutu to former Canadian Prime Minster Paul Martin, and former US President Bill Clinton. Perhaps the most culturally notable has been the assent provided by Oprah Winfrey. Both as a key contributor and 55

partner, Oprah first joined forces with the duo to lend her personal story to their New York Times best-selling book Me to We: Finding Meaning in a Material World, and followed up not long after to officially join forces with Free the Children as she launched her own program, ? Ambassadors' in 2008. This is an incredible amount of success for these two brothers from a quiet suburb of Toronto. The fame, awards and overall success they have achieved certainly comes as a result of the projects they have initiated through Free the Children, and the numerous and charitable gifts they have provided to others. While these opportunities that have arisen out of their philanthropic work may appear to be simply fringe benefits, Seth Mallios (2006) suggests otherwise. In his book, The Deadly Politics of Giving, Mallios declares 'there is nothing free about the seemingly free gift and nothing altruistic about the giver" (p. 26). While the work of Free the Children may be the result of good intentions and a pure desire to meet a perceived need, the work that is done cannot be understood as free from any benefit to those who perform the acts of charity. The seemingly noble goals of the organization to eliminate child poverty and any instances of exploitation currently serve to distort the reality of the gift as an "instrument of power, status and honour used to fortify ones own position" (Komter, 2005, p. 193). Each of these opportunities, from local recognition to international fame, is afforded to the Kielburger brothers as a direct result of the work they have done with Free the Children. Surely, this is to be expected and this observation is not intended to malign the brothers or their work in any 5&

way, instead it is offered as an answer to the question of who benefits from the gifts given by Free the Children. As they many theorists discussed here suggest, the free gift does not exist, for every gift given, a debt is incurred and a return gift provided. In the case of Free the Children, it appears the way in which the rural communities in China, Ecuador, India, Kenya, Sierra Leone and Sri Lanka repay the debt they incur by receiving these gifts is to remain an object of charity, a community in need of saving and, as a result, enable the public perception of Marc and Craig Kielburger as humanitarians, activists and innovators in the field of international development.

The rewards enjoyed by the co-founders of Free the Children are one by-product of the gift exchange, for every gift given there is a benefit to the giver, and for every gift received there is also a debt incurred. The exact number of philanthropic gifts provided by Free the Children to the international community is difficult to pinpoint, for although the organization carefully details specific results including numbers of schools built, aid packages provided, and students educated (Free the Children, 2009f), the more specific details of the nature and degree of each of these provisions is not provided in the materials available. This lack of clarity around the specific support provided, including any reference to the value of the supplies and resources provided, combined with the inherently difficult nature of monetizing volunteer efforts, it is incredibly difficult to identify the degree of debt these 5?

recipient countries acquire when accepting gifts from Free the Children. What can be identified, however counterintuitive it may seem, is the fundamentally negative impact this well-intended support has. As Stirrat and Henkel (1997) suggest, the obligation to reciprocate the gift actually wounds the recipient as it places him or her in a position of indebtedness that is virtually impossible to repay (p. 73). In fact, the recipient's inability to repay the debt is actually a requirement of receiving the gift in the first place, for in the case of Free the Children, any international community capable of reciprocating the nature and degree of the financial support provided would certainly not be a target of aid. Through this interaction, Free the Children is positioned as a patron that provides free gifts to specific communities that are believed to require the type of support the Kielburger's charity can provide. Given the limited ability of the rural community to repay any debt that will result from the gifts provided by Free the Children, a debt-based relationship is established between the two, with the power and the benefit resting with the gift-giver, Free the

Children.

The authority that Free the Children derives from this act of gift giving can be enacted in many ways varying from the logistical to the political. Decision making responsibilities pertaining to the implementation of these projects will rest largely with the Free the Children representatives, including details of who to work with in constructing the various building projects, where 58

specifically the schools should be built and what programs will be run. Although there is some indication that local experts are involved in the decision making process, the level of collaboration on these types of decisions is unclear. Certainly on a social and more ideological level the power to make the ultimate decision rests with Free the Children as the organization, through the power of the free gift, is able to dominate the social relationship and therefore set the agenda for the work they will do together. Also, it is to be assumed that Free the Children would choose to work with local collaborators whose views and opinions are aligned, just as Stirrat and Henkel suggest, "the NGOs [Free the Children, in this example] choose their partners and are unlikely to choose partners whose aims do not approximate their own" (p. 76). As the benefactor, Free the Children controls the funds, places the recipient in a position of indebtedness and is therefore able to set the terms of the relationship with each rural community.

The noble ideal of international aid as a free gift intended to reducing poverty, is simply an empty trope that obscures the reality of the gift. The commonly held belief that international aid is truly an unselfish act intended to help those in need without any consequence to the donor is, at best, a half- truth (Sogge, 2002, p. 10). What lies behind this veil of altruism is an interconnected, debt based relationship benefiting the donor at the expense of the recipient. This social connection of indebtedness is deeply entrenched within "the mundane world of power, patronage and inequality" (Stirrat & Henkel, 1997, p. 74) that governs all other aspects of our society. A focused textual analysis of Free the Children promotional materials will provide examples of how discourse can be used as a tool in this process of concealment, hiding the interested nature of the gift in an effort to support and promote the continued understanding of the free gift.

Discourse, Myth and Free the Children

Although used widely by social scientists across disciplines, the term discourse is often very loosely defined and largely debated. According to Norman Fairclough, discourses are 'ways of representing aspects of the world - the processes, relations and structures of the material world, the 'mental world' of thoughts, feelings, beliefs and so forth, and the social world." (Fairclough, 2004, p. 124). Following Fairclough then, the term discourse describes specific patterns of language use, which can be directly attributed to specific social worlds. Louise Phillips and Marianne W. Jorgensen (2002) further clarify the concept by suggesting the following basic definition "discourses as a particular way of talking about and understanding the world (or an aspect of the world.)" (p. 1). They cite common examples including 'political discourse' or 'medical discourse', which utilize language in different ways to enact situation specific meanings. Within a specific discourse words 60

are used and combined strategically in an effort to create situation specific meaning. Discourse, then, can be understood as an ideological structure that encourages a specific understanding of a social situation. In essence, discourse is a conceptual framing of language and communication responsible for meaning making. Uncovering the ideological structure of discourse has become a central focus within the social sciences due to the ubiquitous nature of language. If meaning is being conveyed not only through the words spoken, but also through sentence structure and other language patterns, it is necessary to assess and expose these structures in order to truly understand the impact of the communication.

Understanding international development as a discourse is central to this discussion. The interest in political and economic stability beyond national borders which emerged post World War Il "brought into existence a new regime of representation" (Escobar, 1997, p. 26), wherein Asia, Africa and Latin America became sites of Western countries benevolence and recipients of aid. The Development Discourse which emerged was "constituted not by the array of possible objects under its domain but by the way in which... it was able to form systematically the objects of which it spoke, to group them and arrange them in certain ways, and to give them a unity of their own" (Escobar, 1997, p.40). Development Discourse can be understood not by simply studying the individual actors or their specific actions that are made in 6r

the name of development, but rather the discourse of development must be understood through an analysis of this system of relationships established between each of these elements (Escobar, 1 997). This process of relations sets into place a set of rules that serve to govern the discourse by identifying who can speak, from which point of view and with what authority. This discourse that has emerged is wide reaching, setting rules across cultural, economic and political geographies of the third world (Escobar, 1997, p. 41). Essentially, Development Discourse has enabled Western countries to establish themselves as superior by placing concepts of knowledge and power exclusively within their own domain. Understanding the ways in which power is enacted through the use of language, then, is central to uncovering the ideological power that is exercised within aid based relationships.

Numerous methodologies have been developed in an effort to identify these underlying structures within discourse which influence create or constrain meaning. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is a method comprised of a body of theories and systematic approaches which empirically study the relations between discourse and social and cultural developments (Phillips & Jorgensen, 2002). Scholars contributing their unique approaches to this discipline include Norman Fairclough, Günther Kress, Ruth Wodak, Teun Van Dijk, and Theo Van Leeuwen and many others. While these various scholars have developed their own diverse techniques, each is similarly "characterized ~ A 62

by the common interests in demystifying ideologies and power through the systematic investigation of semiotic data, be they written, spoken or visual" (Wodak, 2004, p. 186). Following the tradition of Foucault and his understanding of truth as a constructed reality, CDA approaches discourse as a rule-bound practice which imposes limits on what does and does not give meaning (Phillips & Jorgensen, 2002, p. 13).

The discipline of CDA itself may seem to be too diverse to be tightly defined, however the varying theories do share key attributes that serve to unite them. Louise Phillips and Marianne W. Jorgensen outline these five features of CDA in their book Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method (2002). First, CDA understands social and cultural processes to be partly linguistic-discursive, and in fact the goal of CDA is to understand this linguistic-discursive dimension of social and cultural phenomena (p. 61 ). Second, discourse is understood as a contributing factor in shaping the social world, while at the same time being shaped by the social world (p. 61). Third, language is understood as a concrete unit that can be empirically analyzed (p.62). Fourth, discourse is recognized to function ideologically, and therefore contributes to the creation and reinforcement of power relations (p.63). Finally, CDA is recognized as a critical tool that aids in uncovering the role discourse plays in maintaining unequal power relations (p.64). While these basic understandings provide the foundation for CDA as a discipline, the 63

analytical approaches employed by different scholars vary greatly. Recognizing that each approach has merit, Phillips and Jorgensen single out Norman Fairclough's framework for discourse analysis as the most effective for research in communication culture and society (p. 60). Consisting of "a set of philosophical premises, theoretical methods, methodological guidelines and specific techniques for linguistic analysis" (Phillips & Jorgensen, 2002, p. 61), Fairclough's method is comprehensive and rigorous, and provides a concrete and effective approach to critically analyzing linguistic texts.

After publishing a number of texts which focus great detail on linguistic analysis, Fairclough published a comprehensive guide to his approach in 2003, entitled Analyzing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. Within this text, Fairclough outlines a methodological approach to CDA, and provides specific guidelines and practical techniques, all of which are firmly grounded within discourse theory. Fairclough (2003) summarizes his own approach to discourse analysis as "based upon the assumption that language is an irreducible part of social life, dialectically connected with other elements of social life, so that social analysis and research always has to take account of language" (p. 2). While advocating for careful attention to language use, he does emphasize that life cannot be reduced to language, nor is that his intent through this process. Instead, he is proposing an approach to understanding social life through a focus in language, which could then be combined with 64

other forms of research to reach a greater understanding of social phenomena (Fairclough, 2003, p. 2). To this end, he advocates for an interdisciplinary approach which combines textual analysis with social analysis, understanding that discourse is both constituted by and constitutive of social practices within the overall process of meaning-making.

Fairclough's text oriented approach understands discourse to be a contributing factor in the creation of social identities, social relations and systems of knowledge and meaning (Phillips & Jorgensen, 2002, p. 65). In an effort to uncover each of these realities, Fairclough emphasizes the importance of addressing both the text, or what he refers to as the 'communicative event' while also considering the 'order of the discourse', which he describes as the system within which the discourse exists. These Orders of discourse' include 'genres' and 'styles' which organize and control the discourse. Recognizing that texts cannot be understood in isolation, Fairclough proposes a three-dimensional analysis which suggests that a communicative event should first address the linguistic features of the text (grammar, vocabulary, syntax, sentence coherence etc.), secondly identify the processes relating to production and consumption of the test and thirdly, identify the wider social practice within which the communicative event belongs (Phillips & Jorgensen, 2002, p. 68). This methodological approach to discourse analysis enables the researcher to identify specific tangible 65

examples of texts operating in specific ways to promote or reinforce social practices while altogether denying others.

Critical Discourse Analysis and Free the Children Although aid organizations have been subject to unprecedented levels of scrutiny in recent years as access to information and general public interest has increased, the ideological impact of aid has failed to receive much attention. Recognizing that great damage has been done to countries, cultures and individuals in the name of 'development', the western world donors have begun demanding accountability and responsibility from the NGOs they support. These requirements have ushered in an age of quantifiable results, whereby organizations prove their fair dealings by highlighting specific, measurable results. Yet, while transparent communication on the itemizable impact of aid projects is becoming a standard practice, the power relations between the western world and Global South, which do involve a significant level of exploitation, continue to be negotiated through traditional practices of Development Discourse. While donors may believe they are encouraging organizations to be more responsible in ways that will limit negative impact to the recipient countries, in actual fact this increased communication by NGOs and contributes to, rather than combats, the proliferation of the power structures entrenched within Development Discourse. As Norman Fairclough identifies in his text Critical 66

Discourse Analysis, language is a material form of ideology, and has the ability to shape social practices (Fairclough, 1995, p. 71). So, as NGOs begin to further communicate their mission, goals and measure their success, they are at the same time reinforcing the ideology that guides their work.

In an effort to uncover the dominant beliefs that guide an organization and provide the basis for these power relationships that develop through the gift, discourse analysis becomes an invaluable tool. Language structures and patterns of language use provide significant insight into the implications and motivations behind a specific organization. For the purposes of this study, promotional material produced by Free the Children will be explored. A close analysis of the structure, style and content of the charity's formal communications will provide insight into the ways in which the organization's social relations work to "affirm or oppose the dominant way of thinking" (Fairclough, 1995, p. 73); which will then support the discussion of how Free the Children as an organization fits within the broader context of Development Discourse. The many elements and varied mediums through which the message of the Free the Children is communicated provide ample opportunity to explore the impact of both the explicit and implicit messages expressed through their work. The exploration of multiple texts produced as part of the Free the Children movement, will be supported in large part by Fairclough's theories on the relationship between ideology and language. The intent here 67

¡s to identify how motives can be attributed to the organization as a whole through an analysis of both the content and form of their messages. Through public speaking tours, the organization's website(s), clothing line, leadership programs, books and DVD's, the language of development is continually harnessed to spread a very specific message. Given the incredible reach of Free the Children across Canada the power of their message is worthy of close investigation, especially given up until this point it has largely gone unexplored.

Discourse, Ideology and Myth Although not considered to be part of the broad group of CDA theorists, Roland Barthes (1982) has developed theories based upon the same linguistic philosophy as discourse analysts that are also useful for further understanding of the ideological impact of Free the Children. CDA theorists share with Barthes' the tendency to emphasize the importance of understanding how language represents and constructs reality. Norman Fairclough outlines a detailed process for critically assessing discourse, presenting a three dimensional analytical framework for uncovering the overall impact of language use. Emphasizing that texts cannot be understood in isolation, Fairclough advocates for considering the text as existing within a wider social practice (Phillips & Jorgensen, 2002). The incorporation of Barthes' understanding of mythology will therefore contribute to this deeper 68

understanding of the social practices of Free the Children, serving to broaden the interpretation of the discursive practice of the organization. In Myth Today (1982), Barthes' provides the following analytical framework through which one can interrogate speech acts in an effort to identify the underlying myths surrounding our daily life.

1. Signifier 2. Signified

3. Sign

I. SIGNIFIER II. SIGNIFIED

III. SIGN

Table 1. Barthes' Analysis of Myth. (Barthes, 1982,p. 100)

Drawing upon the work of Ferdinand de Saussure, Barthes relies on the science of signs to understand the way that myth is developed. In an effort to explain the existence and understand the power of myth, Barthes proposes a two-tiered semiolgical system that partially subverts the formal system of signification (Barthes, 1982). The system of signifier, signified and sign, as originally suggested by Saussure, is identified as the first-order 'language-object' system (p. 100). This 'language-object' system is focused exclusively on linguistics and has come to be described as the denotative system. Serving as the foundation upon which the second-order system is 69

based, the sign (which identifies the relationship between the signifier and the signified within the 'language-object' system) becomes the signifier within the second system. Identified by Barthes as 'metalanguage', this second system attributes two values to the signifier: meaning and form (Barthes, 1982). Through the process of myth, the meaning of the signifier (as identified through the 'language-object' system) becomes muted within the 'metalanguage' system. Importantly, the meaning of the sign is never completely lost, it is simply diminished and its power reduced (Barthes, 1982). It is through this process, wherein the form of the signifier within the 'metalanguage' system begins to take precedence over the meaning, that mythical speech is created. In effect, the sign of the denotative (the 'language-object') system is appropriated by a connotative (the 'metalanguage') system and employed as a signifier. In doing so, the 'metalanguage' system creates a new value for the signified and together they create a new sign, or more accurately, together they establish a myth.

The essence of this system of double meaning that Barthes suggests within Myth Today supports the understanding of how organizations like Free the Children are able to use language and symbols in order to project one image while also evoking the power and influence of another. In applying a second level of analysis to Saussure's semiology, Barthes suggests that texts, whether they are objects, events or speech acts, are always signifying 70

more than simply themselves. The texts exist within greater social systems and serve to identify the underlying meaning of events within our daily life. For Barthes, the object of study on this quest for identifying myth is the world of mass culture, and given the unprecedented support Free the Children has garnered both in Canada and internationally, Barthes theory lends itself to a thorough analysis of the texts produced by this organization.

What follows will be a detailed critical discourse analysis of multiple texts authored by Free the Children, the majority of which revolve around specific international development projects. This analysis will seek to identify the ways in which Development Discourse practices are at work within the organization's communications while also drawing attention to the different mythologies at work within each text. While Free the Children measures and reports on the quantifiable aspects of the work the charity is doing in the Global South, discourse analysis will serve to provide insight into the less quantifiable aspects of their impact. It may be easy to understand and account for the number of schools built, children educated, communities supported by Free the Children, however it is critical to note that the overall impact of the organization extends beyond these quantifiable aid projects. As Development Discourse has shown, the impact of aid includes more than the goods or services provided. More importantly, the influence of the 71

Organization has a significant ideological component, one that can be understood through Barthes' understanding of myth.

Free the Children's organizational mandates, recruitment events and public statements made by the charity's founders will provide the basis for the analysis. Sourced directly from the organization itself, the textual analysis of these statements and cultural events will identify the role of traditional Development Discourse in the promotion of the Free the Children message. Understanding how both Development Discourse and the creation of myth serve to strengthen the message of Free the Children and further the division between the Western World and the Global South will be central to the research process. Culminating in an exploration of the ideological implications of the Free the Children initiatives and the resulting proliferation of a youth based volunteer and fundraising phenomenon within Canada; this research will seek to understand the ultimate, and thus far unexplored, consequences of the philanthropic gift.

Free the Children Dot Com

When Craig began his crusade against child labour in 1995 the Internet as a mass communication vehicle was still in its infancy. By the time he made his first appearance on the Oprah Winfrey Show in 2006, however, the Internet had surpassed television as the place where most young people 72

gather information. As an organization focused on engaging socially conscious adolescents across North America, the world wide web is certainly an important vehicle for information exchange. As youth flock to the Internet for everything from entertainment, interpersonal communication and reliable information on current events and issues, the online representation of Free the Children provides an important starting point for an investigation into the ways in which the organization represents itself and the messages it conveys.

Typing in those three words 'free the children' followed by the seemingly universal Internet command of '.com' brings you directly to the online home of Free the Children. Bright images of smiling youth grace the front page. Limited messaging leaves the photos responsible for informing the unaware visitor as to what exactly they have stumbled upon. The organization's logo is positioned in the top left hand side of the web browser, complete with the tagline 'children helping children through education' (Free the Children, 2009c). Across the centre of the page and toward the right margin, a navigational bar offers numerous choices to the visitor, providing an opportunity to learn more 'about us' or about 'what we do' or how to 'get involved' and of course, to 'donate' (Free the Children, 2009c). The remainder of the navigation bar and all of the text on the homepage is grey in colour, yet the word 'donate' is in a bright red, further emphasized by what resembles a circle hastily scribbled with a coloured pencil. As the last 73

command along the navigation bar when reading from left to right, the logical reading of the information bar suggests to the website visitor that he/she should first educate himself/herself, and consider getting involved prior to donating. The emphasis of the colour red and the circle surrounding the word 'donate' suggest quite the opposite, creating a sense of urgency and indicating that fundraising is indeed the focus for this organization. This navigation bar consistently sits at the top of each webpage within the site, of which there are 72 separate pages, ensuring a constant reminder to donate and financially support the organization.

Photos of smiling youth dominate every page within the website as simple headlines highlight the key messages of the page in a casual script. Through the use of vibrant colours, attractive photos and short videos with catchy musical accompaniment, the website is a reflection of what Free the Children strives to be as an organization: appealing, engaging and easily accessible. From mission statements to annual reports, www.freethechildren.com provides a significant amount of material to explore and assess. Although the content available on the website allows for virtually endless analysis, given limits of time and space, only a sample will be explored here. As one of the initial assessments of the socio-cultural impact of Free the Children, the focus of this analysis will be on how the organization defines itself through its stated goals and mission. Each of these messages is 74

critical to the success of an organization, as a clearly stated and measurable mission statement enables an organization to both recruit supporters and maintain financial backing. These self-reflexive messages of intent and definitions of success have the potential to provide great insight into the ideological forces guiding the organization as a whole. This analysis of website content, will be combined with textual analyses of additional Free the Children events, in order to uncover the basic motivations driving the organization and will help to identify the overall impact on those who receive support.

Among the many pages of the Free the Children website the 'about us' section provides the most comprehensive overview of the Free the Children's intent, mandate and the organization's core values. Clearly defining this charity seems to be a rather complicated process, as evidenced by the ten separate pages needed to provide a complete description of the many facets of the organization. Below a large colour photo of Free the Children employees gathered together on Toronto Island, ten icons are accompanied by short slogans intended to represent each of the different areas of the 'about us' section (Free the Children, 2009a). The first three ¡cons lead to the 'mission', 'progress' and 'team' pages respectively. The 'mission' and 'progress' section outline the type of work the organization is committed to, while the 'team' page provides the names, faces and job titles of those 7 5

working within the eight different Free the Children offices. Together, these three pages within the 'About Us' section convey three important messages: what Free the Children intends to do, what Free the Children has done so far, and who it is exactly that is doing all of this work. Next, icons for 'history' and 'partners' provide the visitor an opportunity to learn more about the beginnings of the organization and the significant support Free the Children has received to-date. The story of a young Craig Kielburger reading the newspaper and being compelled to make a difference suggests a fundamentally grassroots beginning for Free the Children, while the support from Oprah Winfrey's Angel Network and major media outlets and corporations in Canada hints at a significantly different reality for this Toronto based charity only 15 years later. Together, these two sections of the website work to legitimate the organization's efforts, by staying closely aligned with the youthful ideals of a young Craig Kielburger while garnering support from an impressive array of socially conscious Canadian corporations and cultural

¡cons.

The remaining five areas within the 'about us' section further serve to increase the credibility of Free the Children. The 'press' 'awards' and 'multimedia' section detail the numerous ways in which the organization of Craig and Marc Kielburger specifically have been recognized for their efforts. From media mentions and press releases to human rights awards and the -? 76

prestigious World's Children's Prize for the Rights of the Child, all of the information contained within these three pages bolster the credibility of the organization. Finally, the last two icons within this section 'financiáis' and 'contact us' provide a sense of transparency, accessibility and accountability. In addition to a high level financial overview and the most recent annual report, the financiáis page also provides information on the accountant on staff, the external auditors and emphasizes the organization's low- administration rate. The 'contact us' section welcomes inquiries and actually states 'we're waiting to hear from you' (Free the Children,2009a) an inviting sentiment that further suggests the organization is open and accessible for interested parties.

If the text does indeed have three functions as Fairclough outlines (Phillips & Jorgensen, 2002, p. 65), the ways Free the Children represents itself on its website serve not only to communicate their ideals but also to construct social identities, social relations and systems of meaning. Clear and direct language follows catchy headlines throughout the Free the Children website. Short, simple, and clearly articulated messages are consistently favoured over lengthy justifications. The tagline within the Free the Children logo "children helping children through education" is a prime example (Free the Children, 2009c). Itself a virtually uncontestable statement, this concept of youth driven assistance evokes notions of 77

innocence and a child's reflexive desire for cooperation. As child psychology studies have demonstrated, young children will often provide help without self-interest or desire for reward (Gorlick, 2008). The findings by psychologist Michael Tomasello, as reported by Adam Gorlick, directly support the commonly held assumption that children will speak and act with a degree of honesty unknown to adults. What has, for the most part been assumed based on anecdotal evidence is now further supported by scientific investigation, which together support an notion of a universal truth of childhood innocence. Following Barthes' understanding of myth, the unquestionable innocence of a child would be the 'sign' within the first order of discourse (language-object) however within the realm of myth this innocence becomes the signifier for something different altogether. In the case of Free the Children, the indisputable altruistic nature of a child serves to provide a subtle, yet substantial amount of credibility to the organization. Framed within this sense of youthful innocence, the organization benefits from associated positive qualities of youth, specifically honesty and the innate desire to provide help without any notion of self-benefit.

Building upon this entirely virtuous notion of unselfish aid, the stated intent of Free the Children is further elaborated in the following, rather broad reaching, statement: 78

"The primary goals of the organization are to free children from poverty and exploitation and free young people from the notion that they are powerless to affect positive change in the world. Through domestic empowerment programs and leadership training, Free The Children inspires young people to develop as socially conscious global citizens and become agents of change for their peers around the world." (Free the Children, 2009e)

This mission statement is then condensed into three short statements summarizing the key priorities of the charity: "Free children from poverty. Free children from exploitation. Free children from the idea that they are powerless to change the world."(Free the Children, 2009e). In the first two statements, the perception the innocent child is placed in sharp contrast to unpleasant realities of poverty and child exploitation. In the previous discussion, the myth of the child is employed in an effort to root Free the Children within the context of youthful motivation in order to avoid critique, however in this instance the evocation of a child's innocence is leveraged in an effort to sharply contrast the reprehensible notions of child deprivation and abuse. While evoking the myth of the child in a different manner, these statements continue to present the goals of the organization in such a way that they become virtually uncontestable. It is extremely difficult to challenge an organization's stated intent when it specifically outlines a focus on ensuring that children are provided the opportunity to thrive in a safe and healthy ?9

environment. These first two statements, together with the guiding principle of 'children helping children' are key elements in the social construction of Free the Children as a benevolent, altruistic children's charity. The idealistic nature of this mission statement provides a virtually indestructible foundation upon which the work of the organization is based and, most importantly, this foundation provides a unique degree of freedom from scrutiny, as evidenced by the lack of research published on the organization to date.

More than one million youth across North America have been encouraged to answer the call, led by Marc and Craig Kielburger, to 'free the children' by participating in volunteer and leadership program. Designed specifically to align with core curriculum taught in elementary and secondary schools, this school based programming receives significant support from the Canadian school system, government officials as well as major Canadian corporations. These partner organizations and funding bodies all, for the most part, subscribe to a democratic ideology that favours equality and liberty for all members of society and holds high the notion of universal human rights. Peter Uvin (2007) suggests that the rise of this human rights discourse within the realm of development began in the early nineties, and therefore came to popularity around the same time Craig Kielburger was building the foundation of Free the Children. According to Uvin (2007), a paradigm has emerged which defines human rights as a constitutive part of Development 80

Discourse, he states "all worthwhile processes of social change are simultaneously rights-based and economically grounded, and should be conceived in such terms" (p. 601). The mission statement of Free the Children is directly aligned with this 'rights-based approach', and more specifically with the belief in a fundamental right to education.

Through his genealogical overview of the process that has resulted in the "rhetorical incorporation of rights" within Development Discourse, Uvin (2007) suggests there is much more to this "human-rights-in-development regime" than meets the eye (p. 597). He suggests that the use of rights based discourse within the realm of development may actually serve as a 'moral high ground' upon which organizations can position themselves and protect themselves from criticism (Uvin, 2007, p. 603). The stated intent of Free the Children provides an example of exactly this phenomenon that Uvin suggests may be possible. As an organization working to defend and support the most vulnerable members of society, direct criticism is hard formulate without being confused as an attack or denial of these fundamental human rights. It seems then, that Free the Children's stated intent to 'free children from poverty' and 'free the children from exploitation" (Free the Children, 2009e) not only communicates their mission, but also entrenches the organization within this moral high ground of Human Rights Discourse as Uvin suggests. The use of these human-rights concepts or 'buzzwords' of 81

'education', 'poverty' and 'exploitation', Free the Children establishes an "aura of legitimacy" (Rist, 2007, p. 486). The use of these terms serves to provide a sense of legitimacy, but do little explain what is actually being done, or how. Instead, these words and phrases have developed a taken-for-granted quality wherein the actual meaning of the word and the actions taken in its name are hidden behind assumptions.

The concept of youth education is a largely contested issue within our own country, as each province determines individual standards for educational practices and curriculum. The curriculum taught, and those who administer it, is heavily regulated and subject to direct supervision by provincial government ministries. 'Education' as an abstract concept, however, is easy to agree with and the concept of education for children easily resonates with volunteers and potential sponsors alike. Similarly, 'poverty' as Andrea Cornwall (2007) suggests, has a compelling and 'normative appeal' as a development buzzword (p. 472). It seems the idea of poverty reduction has been so entrenched within our collective consciousness as a 'moral imperative' that questioning poverty reduction motives has been relegated to a position of immorality (Cornwall, p. 472). These development buzzwords function much in the same way as Barthes' concept of myth, serving to "not just cloud meanings: they combine performative qualities with an absence of real definition and a strong belief in what the notion is 82

supposed to bring about" (Cornwall, p. 474). In an effort to understand the impact of Free the Children and the development projects the organization is coordinating, it is important to look beyond the language used to determine the actual meaning behind the statements. What may appear to be admirable intentions need to be brought into question in an effort to resist the assumptions that come along with the use of Development Discourse. Uncovering the assumptions is the first step toward gaining a clearer understanding of the work being done, and by extension, understanding how much help is given and how much harm is being done.

Within the mission statement of Free the Children, the emphasis is largely placed upon the provision of support to a target group that has been identified as 'in need' of aid, whether because of living in impoverished conditions or being subject to child labour practices. The stated intent of this charitable organization is to liberate those victimized by poverty. As we have seen through the use of Development Discourse in the past, this release from poverty is positioned by Free the Children as an act of as emancipation and not participation. The poor, uneducated youth of the Global South are presented as recipients of aid administered by this North American charity. This concept of 'freeing children from poverty' demands that the communities receiving support from Free the Children be understood as victims, unable to provide for themselves and in need of international support. The mission 83

statement of Free the Children effectively perpetuates the longstanding and problematic discourse of development wherein the western world is a benevolent donor to the helpless victims in the Global South (Kapoor, 2008, p. 79). Within two short statements, Free the Children successfully reconfirms the relationship between the Global South and western democratic countries as a simple binary that can be easily reduced to the contrast of 'rich/poor' or 'giver/receiver'. In doing so, Free the Children confirms its superiority over the communities it supports, while denying them any sense of autonomy.

Changing focus, the third and final sentence of the mission statement "Free children from the idea that they are powerless to change the world" (Free the Children, 2009e) changes the subject of the statement entirely. While the first two statements reference the plight of the 'poor' and 'victimized' children in the Global South, the third statement speaks very specifically of children in North America. The first two statements use Human Rights Discourse to discuss matters of international poverty focusing exclusively on the youth of these communities in the Global South, the victimized children in need of aid. In contrast, the final statement focuses specifically on the young volunteers being recruited to support the mission of Free the Children in Canada and the United States. Shifting from a global perspective to a local perspective, the term 'children' suddenly takes on a very different meaning 84

within this third and final mission statement. The children being encouraged to change the world are not those living in the 45 different countries where Free the Children has built schools, rather it is the youth leaders engaged through active citizenship and leadership programs running across North America. The harsh realities of social injustices in the Global South are contrasted against this sense of idealism available only to those in the western world. The leadership programs emphasizing youth empowerment are available exclusively in North America, and in fact there is no reference anywhere to specific programs encouraging youth empowerment and leadership internationally. If the intent is for youth of the countries where Free the Children operates to also feel empowered, this is not clear in this mission statement, or elsewhere on the within materials created by Free the Children. Beyond building projects, which are spearheaded by Free the Children and rely on significant support from Free the Children volunteers, there is no mention of any type of leadership based education, inspiration or leadership training for the youth in these rural communities. The concept of 'children helping children' that drives Free the Children is very clearly a one-way relationship, wherein the student leaders across Canada and the United States help the children of the Global South, and in doing so, the organization perpetuates the understanding that these communities cannot support themselves. As the online representation of Free the Children, the charity's website provides great insight into the structure, guiding principles and overall impact of the organization. Although this analysis has focused on only three statements within the complex and content rich website, the message is one that resonated throughout the website and other promotional materials prepared by the organization. As the three key components to the overarching mission of Free the Children, these statements serve as indicators of the ideological undertones guiding the organization. The language use suggests a degree of implicit messaging behind each statement, ultimately stemming from the larger network of Development Discourse within which the messages of Free the Children exist.

Free the Children's 'We Day'

The ability of language to reinforce and sustain the ideological structures governing North-South relations is certainly not limited to written text. Just as communication takes many forms, the underlying beliefs governing communication can be promoted in different ways. The analysis that follows focuses on a cultural event rather than a physical written text, in attempt to show how the ideals of development can be promoted through participatory events in much the same way as it has been shown to be 86

expressed through written passages such as Free the Children's mission statements.

Ritualizing International Development In the early morning on October 5, 2009, crowds of teenagers swarmed the Air Canada Centre in Toronto, as school buses lined the streets and seemingly endless lines of youth moved hurriedly toward the entrances. Inside the building, volunteers filled the concourse directing the masses of youth toward their seats. It was a scene of coordinated chaos as laughter, excited voices and the sound of hurried footsteps along the concrete filled the air. The energy within the building was palpable as the clock approached the 9:00 am scheduled start time. When the first speaker finally took the stage, a deafening cheer rang out from the audience of 16,000 youth4. The former Assembly of First Nations National Chief, Phil Fontaine, welcomed the energetic crowd of grade 7 through grade 1 2 students representing more than 600 schools from across the Greater Toronto Area. "Are you ready to celebrate? Are you ready to make today the day you change the world?" he began, to which he received a resounding round of applause. He reflected briefly on the numerous social ills plaguing the world, while favouring a sense of hope as he proclaimed, "I can feel change is in the air". Commenting

4 I was in attendance at 'We Day' Toronto on October 5, 2009. Observations are based upon personal experience as well as careful review of the full video of the event available through a webcast on the CTV website. 8 ?

directly on the energy of and passion of the youth in attendance, he identified them as "the light that will shine and eliminate the darkness that so many in Canada and around the world experience," (CTV, 2009). With this passionate and emotionally compelling welcome message, Mr. Fontaine successfully set the stage for the third annual 'We Day'.

After nearly thirty minutes of welcome messages, the indisputable headlining speakers of the event, Marc and Craig Kielburger took the stage to begin the day's event. Welcomed by deafening cheers that would only be outmatched by those that greeted the Jonas brothers later in the afternoon, the Kielburger brothers spoke at a quick pace that seemed to match the intense energy coming from the audience. Marc and Craig shared their message of inspiration and spoke about their passionate commitment to making a change in this world, receiving a passionate cheer following virtually every sentence.

Many inspirational speakers, musical performers and Canadian icons followed the Kielburger brothers onto the main stage throughout the five hour event. Canadian politicians and government officials including the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, John Tory (the former leader of the opposition in Ontario) and former Prime Minister Paul Martin all showed their support by sharing messages of hope, compassion and adamant belief in power of the ·> 88

youth gathered together at the Air Canada Centre. Entertainment icons The

Jonas Brothers and dancers from So You Think You Can Dance Canada performed live while Jessi Cruickshank of MTV fame spoke about her personal experience traveling to Africa and living with a Maasai family. Three keynote speakers with varied experiences were included within this long list of presenters. While Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Elie Wiesel emphasized the importance of compassion and the danger of indifference, Toronto Argonauts General Manager Mike 'Pinball' Gemmons highlighted the fundamental power of socially conscious youth and environmental activist Robert Kennedy Jr. shared stories of the many environmental challenges the world is facing today.

We Day was clearly intended to impact not only those in attendance but the many at home who could not attend in person, as television cameras were stationed throughout the stadium to capture the event proceedings. Whether the action took place on the main stage, one of the two smaller raised platforms scattered along the floor of the stadium or elsewhere within the audience, the cameras were sure to capture it. While the keynote speakers addressed the crowd from a podium on the main stage, hosts Ben Mulroney and Tania Kim interviewed corporate sponsors and special guests throughout the day from the smaller stages. In fact, the presence of the e.talk hosts emphasized the television focus of the event, as their constant 89

introductions to the next speaker served to identify where and when commercial breaks would be incorporated into the television broadcast of this event, which aired on CTV on October 17th 2009.

In total, 18 different speakers (or groups of speakers as in the case of the Cast of Degrassi: The Next Generation) addressed the crowd, sharing their messages of inspiration and challenging the audience to join the movement of Me to We.5 Interspersed throughout the day, musical performances by Justin Bieber, Louise Kent, the Jonas Brothers and Hedley kept the group energized and continually brought them to their feet, while video montages highlighting the work of Free the Children served to prevent any sense of monotony that could follow the hours of public speeches. The day progressed quickly, as each speaker was allotted a maximum of 10 minutes to address the audience and each musical performance was limited to one or two songs. Described by organizers as a rock concert for social change, the event emphasized entertainment while content was limited. The Kielburger brothers were given more time than any other speaker, and in total addressed the crowd for more than 30 minutes, once at the beginning of the day and once at the very end. Summed up most aptly by former Prime Minister Paul Martin, the participants at We Day were "all here because Marc

5 This number excludes corporate representatives who were given the opportunity to speak as part of their sponsorships. While numerous, these addresses simply provided corporate messaging followed by a brief introduction of the next guest speaker. 90

and Craig Kielburger told us that we could change the world" (CTV, 2009). Interestingly, the only option for change the Kielburger's presented to the audience involved raising funds for the Free the Children 'adopt a village' program which is focused on building schools in China, Ecuador, India, Kenya, Sierra Leone and Sri Lanka.

Indeed, 'We Day' is not simply a day of inspiration and motivation, it is also an important recruitment event for Free the Children. Marketed as a celebration of the 'Me to We' philosophy (a way of "thinking and acting that involves embracing our shared humanity and thinking globally" (Me to We, 2009b)), 'We Day' can also be understood as the physical acting out of Free the Children's third mission statement. By design it is an event that will serve to 'free children (in this case, North American children) from the idea that they are powerless to change the world.' Equally entertaining and motivating, 'We Day' is Free the Children's unique approach to simultaneous fundraising and volunteer recruitment. Developed in an effort to encourage participation in 'world changing' acts of social activism, the event combines appearances by human rights activists with performances by famous musicians to engage and inspire youth.

'We Day' is an important day for Free the Children as it serves as a significant recruitment tool for this necessary support from Canadian youth. 91

Through a combination of emotionally charged images, inspirational messages and pop music performances, the event leverages numerous elements of ritual behaviour to engage the audience and acquire support for the international aid provided by Free the Children. In fact, the success of the organization measured by funds raised and number of participant schools can largely be attributed the building up of an organizational mythology and this successful invocation of ritual characteristics during 'We Day'.

The concept of ritual practices has been widely discussed and debated, with terms such as 'rites of passage' become entrenched within the cultural consciousness in ways which serve to broaden the concept and make a concrete definition somewhat elusive. As it has been overextended, confused and employed as an empty trope, the concepts of ritual and the performing of rites have the possibly of becoming devoid of any of the original meaning (Grimes, 2006). As an academic discipline, the study of ritual practices combines theoretical insights from anthropology and sociology in order to describe, define and determine the impact of ritual behaviour (van Gennep, 1960). While it has been expanded over time to meet different scholarly aims, the concept of ritual has consistently been employed in an effort to explain group behaviour and acts of solidarity. Generally understood as a highly structured, symbolic behaviour that is socially standardized and repetitive, ritual was originally studied within the domain of religion and 92

regarding specific interactions with sacred or mystical entities. Scholars now recognize the numerous ways in which ritual is present in entirely secular practices as well, and it is this more worldly view, which will lend itself to the analysis of the 'We Day' events. Free The Children organizers successfully leverage many proven ritual practices identified by academic theorists in order to engage their audience, providing sufficient evidence that ritual behaviour is certainly effective and prevalent in modern society, whether largely recognized by participants or not.

From the early research on religion by scholars such as Emile Durkheim and Arnold van Gennep, to the anthropological studies including theories from Bronislaw Malinowski and Claude Lévi-Strauss, the various academic approaches to ritual studies have served to both influence and inform one another. Durkheim originally identified religion as the primary source of social cohesion, indicating that it is through direct participation in highly prescribed religious ceremonies that the individual is joined to the collective (Durkheim, 1995). Ritual actions specifically prescribed the rules of conduct regarding how one must act when in the presence of the sacred, therefore directly connecting ritual to religious beliefs. For Durkheim, the power of the ritual resides within this association of the sacrosanct object or being, as the myth of the sacred and the ritual behaviour combine to arouse 93

certain ¡deas and feelings toward religious figures and divine personalities (Durkheim, 1995).

While Durkheim perceived this physical acting out of ritual to be an essential component of religious belief, Arnold van Gennep, provided an alternative perspective. Moving beyond the constraining domain of the sacred, through an emphasis on temporality and the specific timing of ritual behaviour, he explored the role of rituals in providing support to the individual during times of life transitions (van Gennep, 1960). Providing a unique and seminal perspective in the domain of ritual studies, van Gennep was the first to identify the ceremonies that accompany times of transition within an individual's life, dubbing these ceremonies the now well-known 'rites of passage'. Rather than focusing exclusively on behaviour that is regulated by the presence of sacred beings or concerned with preserving religious myth, van Gennep identifies individual and group behaviours which accompany specific life experiences and have similar characteristics to ritual behaviours identified by Durkheim and other theorists. In an effort to providing a general understanding of these specific rites accompanying life transitions, van Gennep (1960) offers a framework useful for identifying the intention, power and value (positive or negative) of each ritual act. While the theoretical framework is comprehensive, van Gennep does admit that these specific characteristics are not necessarily absolute, and that each rite can possibly 94

be interpreted in different ways. Regardless of this potential for varying interpretations of individual rights, van Gennep is clear in his assertion that an individual's life can be largely understood as a series of transitions from one age or stage to another, and ritual acts are the specific devices which assist the individual through this time of instability and change.

This understanding of the transformational power of ritual is further extended by Victor Turner's research, as he broadens the theory of transformational nature of ritual beyond the individual to the collective. While van Gennep focuses on rites as they address individual transformations, Turner (1969) emphasizes how ritual performance and ceremony can actually transform entire societies. Exploring the ways in which ritual behaviour can provide insight into social structures and processes, he broadens van Gennep's theoretical framework to include a wider range of group practices.

Finally, building upon these theoretical foundations developed by van Gennep and Turner, David I. Kertzer (1988) directly applies these established theories of ritual to well-documented practices of various political figures. Through a series of ethnographic studies of diverse political movements, Kertzer identifies ways in which political leaders have utilized ritual as a tool to legitimize their authority, engage citizens and reaffirm the political narratives of individual nations. Drawing on examples from recent history 9b

including studies of American presidents and revolutionaries alike, Kertzer shows how ritual enhances political messages, and helps to recruit and retain constituents. A tool utilized non-discriminately to symbolize and advance the agenda of politicians or activist groups; Kertzer proclaims ritual to be a ubiquitous part of modern political life.

As evidenced by Kertzer's studies in Ritual, Politics and Power (1988), ritual is understood today in a much more secular climate than originally conceived, and has been identified as a tool through which varying types of power (political, social, religious) are developed and reaffirmed. The practice of ritual behaviour is virtually universal, and by identifying the specific ritual practices inherent within the political sphere, Kertzer provides a model for further extending this discourse of ritual to explore other social phenomena. Accordingly, it is this understanding of the social implications of ceremonial gatherings and the power of ritual behaviour which Kertzer applies to political events, that will be used to explore Free the Children's annual 'We Day' celebration. While not explicitly political, and not aligned directly to specific religious beliefs,6 'We Day' can certainly be analyzed and indeed understood in terms similar to the political rituals explained and discussed by Kertzer.

6 The argument for both can surely be made, but that is not the intent of the current discussion, nor is there space to afford a digression at this time. 96

An annual event, which began in Toronto in 2007 and has since expanded to two additional cities, 'We Day' is in many ways a daylong ritual of membership induction into the Free the Children community. Carefully crafted and strategically staged, this celebration of youth activism is intended to be motivational (Free the Children, 2009h) and by most accounts, is incredibly successful in achieving its mission (Dale, 2009). With multiple television cameras throughout the stadium to capture presentations from the stage and crowd reactions alike, 'We Day' is largely dramatized event that presents messages of inspiration alongside performances from pop music stars. A number of physiological stimuli including emotionally powerful images, music and video are used to convey a sense of critical importance and urgency in supporting Free the Children aid projects. Designed as an educational and inspirational event, 'We Day' is fundamentally a 'rite of passage' as originally identified by van Gennep (1960), as it facilitates the youth participant's passage from indifference to commitment to making changes to the world around them. The event serves to welcome the youth in attendance into the Free the Children community, recognizing the commitment they have made to being advocates for social change and further strengthening this commitment by presenting compelling stories of communities and individuals in great need of support. 97

As with historical political and revolutionary movements, powerful symbols of the 'Me to We' movement have been developed to help identify members, and establish Free the Children as an organization as the expert voice of social change. Members aligned with the 'Me to We' philosophy can make personal and public statements of their commitment through their consumption of products promoting and supporting the work of Free the Children. 7 Just as Boy Scouts, Girl Guides, or members of Kiwanis Clubs can be identified by their distinct uniforms Free the Children has also appropriated a type of symbolic dress. The 'uniform' of Free the Children is an organic, fair trade t-shirt emblazoned with slogans such as "Be the Change". The vast majority of 'We Day' speakers and audience members alike can be seen wearing different versions of these shirts, produced by partner organization Me to We: Responsible Style. Indeed participants attending 'We Day' were encouraged to wear their shirt to the event, and if they did not own one, shirts were for sale at kiosks stationed throughout the stadium concourse. Video broadcasts of the Toronto event provide evidence that these t-shirts serve as strong symbols of the movement, with a vast majority of audience members wearing the inspirational shirts.

7 Currently, there are seven books available from Me to We that serve to share the story and spread the philosophy of Free the Children. In addition, Me to We has developed a clothing line and music label that help to further spread the message of the organization. 98

Public commitments at ' We Day' are not limited to simply wearing Me to We: Responsible Style clothing to the event. All students and teachers in attendance were also expected to make their own personal 'commitment to change' prior to attending the event. This commitment involves agreeing to participate in the year-long program coordinated by Free the Children, which "includes taking action in their own community, as well as supporting an overseas project through Free The Children's Adopt a Village program" (Free the Children, 2009h). While members of the Soviet Communist Party in 1973 were required to have membership cards to demonstrate their allegiance with the party (Kertzer, 1988), participating in 'We Day' is enough to show commitment to the philosophy and programs dictated by Free the Children. In attending the event, it is assumed that all participants have made this commitment to change, and therefore their solidarity with the Free the Children movement does not require a membership card, as their presence in the stadium confirms their dedication to the cause.

For Free the Children 'We Day' is an incredibly successful vehicle for developing a degree of shared consciousness among community members. The event, which leverages numerous ritualistic characteristics is effective largely because, as Kertzer (1988) identifies, ritual is "not simply one possible way of creating group solidarity, it is a necessary way" (p. 62). Ritual behaviour is traditionally linked to specific mythologies, unique stories and 99

perspectives shared by community members which then guide and inform the ritual performances. In order for an organization like Free the Children to be successful, it must have a unique way of representing itself, and one way of achieving this is through the continuation of myths regarding the organization's origin (Kertzer, 1988). The story of 12-year-old Craig and his day of inspiration when confronted with a shocking newspaper headline is no longer simply an simple anecdote, it has become the foundational myth upon which the Free the Children community has been built. Both inspiring and emotionally compelling, this story of a young boy compelled to fight for social justice is largely responsible for the incredible success of the Free The Children. Every community has their own unique mythology which details it's origins and sanctifies cultural norms (Kertzer, 1988). The power of these myths, and the rituals which sustain them, stems from an outright discouragement of critical thinking, as "myths and metaphors permit men to live in a world in which the causes are simple and neat and the remedies are apparent" (Kertzer, 1988, p. 84). Accordingly, the story of young Craig's efforts to raise awareness and put a stop to child labour is the consistent precursor to any recruitment message developed by Free the Children, including, of course, 'We Day'. Through the telling and re-telling of Craig's moment of inspiration Free the Children is able to legitimize its authority while simultaneously recruiting new community members and discouraging any degree of critical inquiry. 100

Introduced by a video highlighting their humble beginnings as pre- teens passionate about making a difference and trumpeting their significant successes during their 14-year crusade, Marc and Craig Kielburger are the first keynote speakers to take the 'We Day' stage. The ninety-second video responsible for introducing them provides an overview of how Free the Children became the 'largest network of children helping children through education', beginning with the newspaper story that caught Craig's attention at age 12, the video voiceover proclaims: "In 1995 a 12 year old and his brother began showing the world the true power of a child's determination. Their playground: the world's poorest countries, the world's most influential leaders, and the world's media. They started a revolution, for kids, by kids "(CTV, 2009).

The video shows Marc and Craig meeting with children living in poverty, asking them about their hardships, and then transitions towards images of the brothers addressing politicians and meeting with religious leaders. Photos of Marc and Craig with Mother Teresa, the Pope, and the DaIi Lama are followed by images of Free the Children volunteers carrying clean water across a worksite while happy and healthy children play in the playground.

When the video ends and the lights in the arena focus on the main stage, the Kielburger brothers receive thunderous applause from the 101

audience. Following the same format as the video that introduced them, Marc and Craig begin their address with images of young children living in impoverished conditions, rummaging through landfills and wielding handguns. Citing numerous statistics and providing anecdotes of children they have interacted with during their travels, the Kielburger brothers relay stories of horrors completely unknown within the Canadian experience. Members of the 'We Day' audience are bombarded with these emotionally charged symbols of human rights injustices taking place around the world. In his discussion of political rituals, Kertzer (1988) indicates that the most effective rituals have an emotionally forceful quality to them, and it is through the emotional excitement that the ritual also instructs. Certainly, the messages of despair which Marc and Craig cite serve to frame the 'Me to We philosophy' in such an emotionally compelling way that the work of Free the Children becomes, according to Kertzer's theory of ritual, "so emotionally compelling it is beyond debate" (p. 101 ). Presented in sharp contrast to these images of despair, the Free the Children initiatives depicted in the video and described by Marc and Craig serve as an answer to the many social ills plaguing the Global South. Quantifying their success through the number of schools built (500 to date) and the 50,000 students currently attending Free the Children schools, Marc and Craig explain the different projects Free the Children has initiated. Behind them, images of smiling children sitting in classrooms or 102

dancing and playing sports in the schoolyard flash across the screens (CTV, 2009).

Through this elaborate and rather conspicuous invocation of symbolism and metaphor, Marc and Craig Kielburger successfully manipulate the key attributes of successful ritual to strengthen the mission of the organization they founded. They work together to present a unified, well- scripted and clearly rehearsed message. Standing in strong opposition to the injustices in the world, the work of Free the Children is framed in such a way that it becomes virtually uncontestable. After welcoming the group present in Toronto as well as those watching online from home, they list numerous moments in world history - from the women's suffrage movement in North America to the young people that spoke up against apartheid in South Africa. From Gandhi's commitment to peace to Terry Fox's Marathon of Hope, these influential world leaders and change makers are hailed for their heroic actions. As Marc Kielburger claims, "each of these individuals saw an injustice, and they chose to stand up and take action" (CTV, 2009). Without taking a breath, Marc then launches into a monologue which highlights the successes of Free the Children and the past two 'We Day' events: "Thanks to Canadian students and families, dozens of schools and water projects have been built, 150,000 volunteer hours have been logged and 100,000 dollars have been raised" (CTV, 2009). In doing so, he harnesses the emotional 103

power of these international icons to engage the audience and then channels this energy through a direct connection to the work of Free the Children. By linking their organization and their work to these larger, influential social movements of the past, the Kielburger brothers successfully equate their mission with these noble accomplishments. Through the use of images, video, music and storytelling Marc and Craig establish credibility for their mission and define their international aid efforts in such a way that denies contestation and serves only to strengthen of the Free The Children movement.

As a ritual of initiation, 'We Day' is simply the beginning for youth that decide to align themselves with Free the Children. The first day of a year long fundraising and advocacy program, 'We Day' is part of a larger political and cultural phenomenon, in which Marc and Craig Kielburger are faming themselves as authority figures. During the height of Free the Children recruitment phase in October of this year, Craig and Marc appeared on CBCs The Hour with George Strombolopolous', while the Toronto Star and

Vancouver Sun each featured an entire section dedicated to content on Free the Children, while also co-authoring a weekly column titled 'global voices' which runs in both papers. Framing themselves as authorities on child labour and other social injustices, the Kielburger brothers have developed a mythology not only for their organization, but also themselves, whereby they 104

have become the uncontested voices of reason against the human rights violations taking place around the globe.

The ritual nature of "We Day' plays a significant role in recruiting participants, spreading the message of Free the Children as well as the successful framing of the Kielburger brothers as leaders of this revolution for positive social change. However, as Roberto Da Matta (1977) suggests, rituals both hide and reveal; during a ritual, while something is presented, something else remains hidden. For Durkheim, this was the space of the sacred, the hidden essence that you could not see or identify but that was present all the same. If this concept of a hidden aspect of the ritual can be extended to all rituals, as Da Matta suggests, then further consideration must be given to the ritual of 'We Day'. Are there aspects of the Free the Children program and the 'We Day' ritual that are less transparent than the idealist commitment to changing the world? Currently, more than one million students are actively involved in Free the Children awareness and fundraising programs; supporting 500 schools which educate more than 50,000 children each day. Their impact does not stop there. With four Nobel peace prize nominations, 300 youth development trips, seven books, a clothing line, a music label, partnerships with the UN and Oprah's Angel Network, Free the Children continues to grow in various directions at an incredible pace. While the 'We Day' ritual serves to reaffirm the mythology of 12 year of Craig T05

Kielburger's dream to change the world, it remains to be seen what, if any, other aspirations are being concealed by this fundamental nature of the ritual.

A Rock Concert for Social Change

An event that includes Canadian entertainment news personalities alongside pop music sensations Justin Bieber and the Jonas Brothers is perhaps an unlikely subject for critical analysis. In practice, however, this combination of music stars with social activists and prominent political figures is an important example of how Free the Children successfully shares its mission with Canadian youth and inspires their participation. We Day' 2009, held in Toronto on October 5, was one of three similar events held across Canada designed to be much more than a simple rock concert or motivational seminar. As described on the event website:

"We Day is like a rock concert for social change, celebrating the power of young people to change the lives of others. It brings together some of Canada's top social issues speakers and entertainers to the stage, in front of a roaring audience of 16,000 student leaders who want to change the world. Hundreds of thousands more tune in online to watch it live at CTV.ca/WeDay." (Free the Children, 2009g)

As a direct result of the first two events of this kind, where more than 15,000 students attended 'We Day' in Toronto, 5,000 school groups were established across the province and the country, volunteering more than 150,000 106

volunteer hours and collectively raising 5 million dollars (Free the Children, 2009g). By many standards, 'We Day' has been an inarguable success, and instrumental in raising awareness and funds for Free the Children. Building on these successes, the 2009 'We Day' made a significant expansion not only by relocating to a venue that would allow double the number of students to attend in person, but also introducing a second 'We Day' in Vancouver where an additional 16,000 students were able to share a similar experience. During this five-hour event musical performances were interspersed throughout a packed lineup of inspirational speakers, providing an overall experience that was equally entertaining and motivating. The many pop-culture and political icons that graced the stage presented one part of a unified message of encouragement to the youth in attendance and those watching at home. The request was simple, and the justification was even more so. Youth were asked to simply make a 'commitment to change' and in doing so, enable Free the Children to help other children in need.

In somewhat of a multi-media frenzy, 'We Day' combines public speeches with video presentations, musical performances with photomontages and more video cameras than one would expect to see on the production set of a major motion picture. With the co-hosts roaming throughout the audience, 'We Day' was a well-orchestrated and incredibly large-scale event, especially by charitable organization standards. In his 107

analysis of discourse Fairclough suggests that there are two dimensions of discourse that provide the focal points of the analysis, the communicative event and the order of discourse. The former references the instances of language use, while the latter refers to the configuration of the discourse types utilized (Phillips & Jorgensen, 2002). According to Fairclough a communicative event does not only take the form of written text, it can also take the form of a video, interview or public speech, for example (Phillips & Jorgensen, 2002, p. 67). Following this framework established by Fairclough, 'We Day' is in itself a communicative event and can be understood as a type of cultural artifact that both enables the institution of specific social relations and the promotion of specific values, as dictated by the event creators.

With eighteen major speakers, four major musical performances, numerous video presentations and only five and a half hours to work with, 'We Day' Toronto moved forward at a pace that practically denied audience members the opportunity to grow tired or disinterested. Given the event was not intended simply to entertain but rather to inspire, the structure, content and format of the event provide significant insight into the greater social functions of this 'rock concert for social change'. The day began on time and the first speaker of the day, Phil Fontaine, Former National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, received roaring applause from the 16,000 youth anxiously waiting to get started. Fontaine's welcome message was followed 108

directly by the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, David C. Onley. Both spoke only briefly, their messages comprised of simple statements welcoming the youth to the event and encouraging both those in attendance and those watching at home to 'make a difference' and 'be leaders in their community' (CTV, 2009). The pairing of an aboriginal leader and Government official is not without political undertones and likely very intentional. For most of this nation's history, the relationship between the aboriginal community and the Canadian government has been one of conflict. Though their appearance on the same stage, one after another, Phil Fontaine and David C. Onley's presence served to neutralize any notion of tension between the two groups they each symbolized. This inclusion of both representatives together on the same stage and sending the same message effectively (for this moment) depoliticized the relationship between the two communities. This seemingly amicable relationship between the Canadian government and the aboriginal community was of significant benefit to Free the Children, far beyond the simple endorsement of these two political figures. Including the aboriginal community within the event allowed Free the Children to avoid the first major criticism often made of any organization that works internationally. Typically, in response to support provided globally, critics will ask why similar support is not provided locally to in an effort to curb domestic poverty. Through the participation of Phil Fontaine, his passionate endorsement of the Free the Children initiatives during his welcome message and more simply his 109

willingness to participate alongside government representatives largely negate any attempt to perceive the aboriginal communities in Canada as subjects requiring the type of support Free the Children provides overseas. Further participation from political figures continued throughout the event, with messages from former Prime Minister Paul Martin from the Liberal party and John Tory, the former leader of the Conservative party. Again, ensuring political neutrality both sides of the political spectrum were represented while avoiding any direct mention of their political affiliations or positions on specific issues, including foreign policy. While political figures were in attendance, the event was presented in such a way that it appeared to be fundamentally non- partisan, and therefore completely inclusive. Given the overall goal of this event it is important to note that while multiple political perspectives were offered, the event itself and the topic of international development remains politically charged.

Following these welcome messages, the first keynote speakers of the morning were Marc and Craig Kielburger. The youth in attendance rose to their feet in celebration of the brother's appearance. Together, they addressed the crowd for more than fifteen minutes, welcoming those in attendance and setting the stage for what would be a day about 'taking action' and 'striving to create a better world' (CTV, 2009). Marc and Craig followed this address up with another twenty-minute presentation at the very end of the 11u

event. Both speeches were equally self-congratulatory and inspirational, while also being predominantly informational. The brothers celebrated the ability for all those in attendance to make a difference ¡n their own lives and their own communities, and then provided specific information on the numerous ways for Canadian youth to get involved with Free the Children throughout the year. When both their opening and closing addresses are combined, the Kielburger brothers spoke for more than 30 minutes, meaning they spent triple the amount of time on stage as compared to Nobel Peace Prize laureate and holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel. Along with environmental activist Robert Kennedy Jr., Wiesel was one of the two most notable speakers present that day, and yet both were given only ten minutes to share their message with the audience. Promoted as an event intended on simply inspiring 'social change' and encouraging young Canadians to take action, the predominance of the Kielburger brothers on stage and the virtually exclusive focus on Free the Children programming insists that the event had a much more specific intent.

Throughout the day the infamous quote by Mahatma Gandhi was referenced numerous times. In speeches, on t-shirts and even within the Free the Children collateral given out to attendees, the message to 'be the change you wish to see in the world' was ever present. Given the exclusive focus on the specific events and actions coordinated by Free the Children, however, it quickly became clear that the type of change being encouraged was not as 1 11

flexible as the quote suggests. Instead, event participants were not necessarily encouraged to think critically and decide what specific change they wanted to see in their community, but rather they were presented the opportunity to mold themselves and their actions after the example of the Kielburger brothers. In turn, each youth leader was being given the tools not for self-determination, but rather to become agents of the change Marc and Craig have set out for the world.

Carefully constructed in such a way that encourages not simply social activism, 'We Day' engages and recruits participants with the specific intent of garnering support for Free the Children. Given the entire day is designed, coordinated and run by Free the Children in partnership with Me to We, a social-enterprise that has committed to profit share with Free the Children and support the charity's mission, it is not unexpected that this one specific charity would continually be front and centre. This was certainly the case as eight of the eighteen speakers and one musician were either active employees of Free the Children, or their message was specific to an experience they had on a Me to We trip that support one of Free the Children's building projects. If you include the speeches given by Marc and Craig within this tally, exactly one half of the speakers at 'We Day' were sharing a message that explicitly promoted Free the Children initiatives. Again, this number is not entirely surprising, or necessarily inappropriate, given the event is presented by Me to 112

We and Free the Children. However, reflecting back upon the description of 'We Day' provided on the event website, the event is clearly marketed in a very different way than it functions. The stated goal of the event never makes a direct reference to Free the Children or to the concept of international development itself. Outlining the intent of the event in very general terms, 'We Day' is identified as a "... rock concert for social change, celebrating the power of young people to change the lives of others" (Free the Children, 2009g). Whose lives are intended to be changed, and how, is never mentioned within the event information. The vague description suggests social activism is the focus of the event, and the musicians and speakers that come together will provide positive examples of the types of change possible. When accompanied by a list of the speakers scheduled for the event, the variety of presenters also suggests to the uncritical eye that 'We Day' will bring together a diverse set of voices. In practice, however, the only tangible options for getting involved and becoming an agent of change suggested throughout the five-hour event were very specific to initiatives coordinated by

Free the Children.

According to the message provided on the event website, 'We Day' is intended to bring together thousands of student leaders "who want to change the world" (Free the Children, 2009g), and there is absolutely no doubt that it is successful in doing so. However, the actual events throughout the day 113

indicate a much more specific intent beyond this simple goal of youth assembly. When audience members collectively jumped to their feet upon hearing Marc and Craig Kielburger's names announced and stood standing long after the brothers took centre stage, it became clear that the audience was there for one reason and one reason only. The Kielburger's were household names to the aspiring social activists in the audience, and it was obvious by their positive responses to Marc and Craig's speech that they were familiar with and had every intention to support the work of Free the Children. If the participants were there to support Free the Children, and the event organizers designed the event to promote Free the Children, it is both peculiar and somewhat suspicious that the event continues to be marketed as a day celebrating social activism, rather than what it really was: a recruitment event for any already largely successful international charity.

An event that began and ended with motivational messages from co- founders Marc and Craig Kielburger, 'We Day' also included a diverse array of political figures, corporate leaders, entrepreneurs and social activists. As each speaker addressed the group with a slightly different message, all shared the sentiment of hopeful promise and belief in the abilities of the group of young people gathered together. Elie Wiesel called this event an 'extraordinary moment of promise', the cast of Degrassi labeled the collective actions of 16,000 youth an 'unstoppable force' and Jessi Cruickshank told the 114

group that "you are the motivated, educated generation who care just as much about the little issues in your own world as you do about the big ones on our planet" (CTV, 2009). The consistent message that the youth in attendance have the power to change the world was declared confidently many times throughout the day. The nature of specific changes and necessary steps for enacting change, however, were largely left unaddressed by the guest speakers. The motivation to change the world was provided within every speech and every song, while the explanation of how to change was left for Marc and Craig to address in their closing remarks. Heavy on entertainment value and rather low on education content, 'We Day' was much more a spectacle of social activism than an effective vehicle of social awareness. The informal structure of the day, with musical performances and audience participation gimmicks including a 'mobile phone wave' scattered between speeches ensured a casual and comfortable atmosphere in the stadium. The incredibly diverse lineup of speakers, ranging from corporate sponsors to social activists, entertainment icons to political figures reinforced the messaging of Free the Children at every opportunity. While Elie Wiesel and Robert Kennedy Jr. spoke more generally of the importance of responsible citizenship, every other speaker connected directly to Free the Children initiatives at some point. Although Craig Kielburger suggested very generally that "We Day is about striving to create a better world" (CTV, 2009), it is clear that the event was really focused on garnering further support for 115

Free the Children. The event was a perfect opportunity to spread the message of the organization, recruit new participants and reinvigorate past volunteers. Although marketed as an event simply advocating for youth to seek out unique ways in which they can 'be the change', the underlying and at times more overt call to action was one specific to Free the Children. The countries supported by the Free the Children were continually presented as those in the most urgent need of support, while the method Free the Children is following to provide aid was presented as the only viable option for these communities to thrive. There is no question that the youth in attendance were encouraged to change the lives of others, just as the mission statement of the event indicates, however whose lives and how they change them was much more prescribed than the event details indicated.

The Kielburger Brothers: Co-founders and Co-stars We Day 2009 began and ended with messages from the co-founders of Free the Children, Marc and Craig Kielburger. Every message that followed their introduction stemmed from Craig's suggestion that those in attendance shared a collective dream for a better world, while each speaker or performance also worked to support Craig's final conclusion that we do indeed have the power to "forever change the life of another person" (CTV, 2009). Each presenter throughout the day also served to further legitimize the authority of Marc and Craig Kielburger as experts in how to initiate these 116

changes to individual lives and entire communities. Strengthening and reinforcing the support Marc and Craig receive from thousands of Canadian youth, 'We Day' has become an influential cultural event for Canadians, and thus as wide-reaching implications.

As the co-founders of Free the Children and Me to We Marc and Craig are largely responsible for guiding the vision and execution of 'We Day', and their presence at the beginning and end of the day confirmed this position of authority over the event. Drawing upon a number of rhetorical devices, Marc and Craig worked together to elicit emotional responses from their audience while instilling a sense of optimism and shared belief in the power of North American youth to make positive changes within their local and global communities.

"We day is about taking action. 'We Day' is about striving to create a better world. And for the past two years and two 'We Days' you have stood up, you have taken action and you have proved that change is possible." Craig Kielburger at 'We Day' Toronto 2009 (CTV, 2009)

Together, Marc and Craig spoke candidly about significant events in our collective history including the civil rights movement and the resistance against apartheid, likening the successes of the past two 'We Days' to these historical events. Working together in a conversational manner, Marc and 117

Craig briefly referenced historical social activists Martin Luther King Jr., Terry Fox, Gandhi and even included present day inspirational leader, US President Barack Obama. Craig suggested that, just as each of these leaders stood up in the face of injustice and took action, those in attendance at 'We Day' were also taking action against the social problems of today and as a result are "a small part of this history of social movements" (CTV, 2009). Marc then followed up Craig's claim, further promoting the concept that the youth gathered together in Toronto have the power to be as influential as these world leaders. Marc proclaimed:

"We Day is so much more than simply a collection of speakers and musicians because we know the true heroes are those people who are standing up for the worlds challenges every single day through their thoughts and through their actions. Ladies and gentlemen the true heroes are you" (CTV, 2009).

As with virtually every statement they made, Craig and Marc received thunderous applause in response to these messages of hope, inspiration and empowerment.

On stage for approximately fifteen minutes, the Kielburger brothers turned their passionate discussion to current issues. Drawing upon the 118

analogy of newspaper headlines, they suggested how the world's problems can seem overwhelming and admitted the degree of poverty and violence is disheartening. Large television screens behind the brothers flashed images of newspaper clippings that provide context to the statistics they provided. When Craig suggested that behind every headline is a person he directly evoked the power and emotion connected to the early years of Free the Children, when Craig himself was inspired by a story he read in the newspaper. Drawing upon the power behind this reality, that one single newspaper headline did inspire a movement that now boasts support from millions of young people across North America, Craig then suggested the possibility of a different, more positive reality for youth around the world. "But today, we dream of a very different set of headline. We dream of reaching for the newspaper and seeing the words that global poverty is decreasing" (CTV, 2009). He emphasized the fulfillment of basic human rights including access to education, clean water and healthcare as being critical components of this common dream. Through this consistent use of the collective 'we' and the suggestion of this shared dream for the future, Craig and Marc's message effectively removed any sort of division between the brothers and their audience. Kress and Van Leeuwen (2006), in their research on discourse and cultural texts suggest that the use of 'we' enacts a social relationship that breaks down the barrier between producer and viewer (p. 116), or in this case, between the co-founders and the volunteers and fundraisers of Free the 119

Children. Marc and Craig's consistent and repetitive use of 'we' authorizes the brothers to speak on behalf of the entire group in attendance, while the format of the event reinforces their authority. Given the audience members are never provided the opportunity to speak or contribute beyond affirming any messages presented to them, their personal beliefs and desires are represented exclusively through the messages presented by the Kielburgers. Dominating the event itself through their significant stage presence and their bookend addresses that both physically and thematically structured the event, Marc and Craig's use of inclusive language and the authoritative 'we' further served to magnify their already impressive influence. By employing this linguistic device that implies collective agreement while speaking casually, almost as if in conversation with the audience, Marc and Craig's presentation on stage at 'We Day' established a sense of inclusive and cohesive community centred on the values and goals of Free the Children. When the students left the Air Canada Centre that day, they received a bag filled with resources provided by Free the Children. In his closing remarks, Marc stated, "as you leave here today we are going to continue to be with you to stand with you to be part of this journey" (CTV, 2009). This is a journey to change the world that, for these youth in attendance, began with an event largely dominated by Free the Children messaging and continues to be largely navigated by Free the Children. With numerous online resources, social networks and an established school curriculum, Free the Children is well 120

positioned to provide the necessary information and tools for these youth to effectively fundraise and advocate for the organization. 'We Day' is simply the first, and most elaborate, component of a well-developed recruitment program that has enabled Free the Children to thrive as an organization. Through an impressive mix of inspirational examples and motivational stories, 'We Day' encourages youth to support Free the Children's international development activity while simultaneously denying the possibility that other issues not currently addressed by Free the Children, may be worthy of support from these thousands of socially conscious youth looking to make a meaningful impact on their world.

Conclusion

"A boy, a newspaper and some shameless idealism." (Free the Children, 2009b, p.4).

When tracing the origins of the 'Me to We' movement as spearheaded by Free the Children, it all seems to come back to the moment when Craig Kielburger picked up the newspaper and was touched by the story of Iqbal Masih. Everything the organization has achieved, from the money raised to programs developed, countries visited to governments lobbied, all of these actions have been done (at least in part) because of Iqbal and his inspiring 121

story. With the goals of freeing children from poverty and exploitation, Craig and his brother Marc have made a life and a career out of encouraging North American youth to reach out, take action and make a difference in the lives of children around the world.

The Kielburger brothers' passion to create positive change may be indisputable, but the actual impact of this 'shameless idealism' is open for debate. In 2009 alone, through Free the Children's annual 'We Day' event, Marc and Craig shared their vision and mission personally with more than 32,000 youth, as well as the thousands more watching at home and online. With more than 350,000 students engaged each year through motivational speaking tours, and tens of thousands more involved directly in fundraising initiatives, Marc and Craig Kielburger are in a unique position not only to make quantifiable changes in developing countries, but also to have a direct and lasting impact on the Canadian consciousness. Our national perspective on charity and volunteerism and more specifically our attitudes toward the Global South are being significantly influenced by the messages of Marc and Craig Kielburger. Their stated intent to 'free the children' is clear, simple and on the surface rather difficult to dispute. They have become well known across the country as advocates for children's rights that are making a difference in 45 countries around the world. They have garnered support from celebrities, politicians and educators across the continent as their youth 122

engagement tactics actively deny the sentiment that today's youth are selfish and unmotivated. While changing cultural attitudes through their personal behaviour and the behaviour they have inspired in others, the Kielburger brothers are also invigorating public policy through their innovative approach to fundraising and development. Marc and Craig's business practices, comprised of an intricate tripartite relationship between their personal holdings company, their 'social enterprise Me to We and their charitable organization Free the Children is currently being reviewed by Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) (Wingrove, 2010). There is great potential that a new model for governing charitable organizations and social enterprises within Canada will be suggested by the CRA, partly in response to the incredible success of the Kielburger empire.

Hailed as experts and activists in equal measure, Marc and Craig have proven their ability to use buzzwords of development to their advantage. It also seems that their status as cultural icons is not only successfully raising awareness and support for their organization, but also serving to protect them from significant critical inquiry. Through their charitable organization Free the Children, they promote of one singular model for providing support for diverse communities across Asia, Africa and South America, and perpetuate the notion that international aid is the only way for the Global South to thrive. Both in execution and in theory, the work of Free the Children does not align 123

with what most development research would suggest to be the most effective, and yet Free the Children's methods are presented and understood as universal truths.

Each year, a modest estimate would assume Marc and Craig Kielburger impact the lives of hundreds of thousands of North American youth, whether through 'We Day', or one of their other domestic youth programs. Through educational and inspirational speaking tours, leadership camps and active citizenship programs, or the school based and Oprah Winfrey endorsed program ? Ambassadors', whether through Free the Children directly or its partner organization Me to We, the Kielburger brothers are able to reach youth all across North America. Internationally, Free the Children and its partner organization Me to We further extends their impact, reaching youth in rural communities throughout the Global South. Implementing their 'Adopt a Village' program focused on providing access to education, clean water and health care in rural areas, Free the Children and Me to We currently operate in Kenya, China, India, Sierra Leone, Ecuador and Sri Lanka. In total, more than 45 countries around the world have felt the impact of Free the Children through school and other building projects initiated by the organization. These brothers have certainly come a long way from the days when twelve young people gathered around the Kielburger kitchen table, intent on making a difference but unsure of how to go about it. 124

Indeed they have made a difference; they have touched the lives of millions of people, both at home in North America and internationally. It is important to recognize, however, that measuring this impact of Free the Children, and by extension the Kielburger brothers, cannot be accomplished by simply tallying the number of schools built, the number of youth in attendance at leadership training seminars or the financial value of medical supplies shipped overseas. The numbers simply cannot tell the whole story. Behind each of these statistics is a deliberate choice made by the organization and its leaders, and these choices are inherently guided by a specific moral philosophy and guided by an ideology that is clearly rooted within Human Rights and Development Discourse, and therefore complicated by the many challenges the concept of development presents. Identifying the overarching ideology that guides Free the Children can begin by focusing on the numerous texts produced by the charity. Socio-cultural analysis including, but not limited to, critical discourse analysis can help to identify the connections between the texts and the larger socio-cultural context influencing the decisions being made. Both as an incredibly successful not- for-profit and inarguable cultural Zeitgeist among Canadian youth, the world that Free the Children has constructed emphasizes and perpetuates Development Discourse, with all the associated complications. 125

Beyond cultural and ideological implications that can be drawn out through textual analysis, more basic concepts including program administration processes also raise complicated questions. Transparency around fundraising and fund distribution is one example. Currently, there is little information available on how funds are distributed, beyond the simplistic division between international and domestic programs. There is no information available on how much support is given to each country that Free the Children operates in, and there is no clear identification of the costs associated with each of the components of the 'adopt-a-village' program coordinated by the organization. While the organization is quick to indicate the fact that it has impacted forty-five countries around the world through its aid programs, an actual list of the countries supported and the nature of support is not available. Looking beyond the large figures that are provided by the charity in annual reports, an accurate and detailed assessment of the organization's impact is difficult. It is unclear where specifically they are working8, which projects are being administered where, and what degree of support each community can expect to receive in the future is also not available. Potentially understood as minute details or simple administrative decisions, the absence of this type of information further strengthens the

8 The website currently mentions Free the Children as being 'active' in six countries, yet continually references that there are schools in more than 45 Free the Children schools around the world. Through research into the organization online and in their published works yielded no complete list of countries where Free the Children has built schools. (Free the Children, 2009f) 126

argument for further research into the impact and motivations of the organization, which provide a greater understanding of the ideological and cultural predispositions guiding the work of Free the Children.

As a group of 'children helping children through education' it is curious that the actual education provided is never discussed. The number of schools built and countries impacted has been tallied, yet the nature of the education provided is never detailed. The lessons taught within Free the Children schools and the method of delivery is largely absent from any formal Free the Children communications. It is unclear whether the students are taught in their native language or in English, the native language of Free the Children. The qualifications of the teachers are not known, and there are no indications whether the teachers are local educators or international volunteers. The curriculum itself is never referenced, and although we are told that more than 50,0000 students have access to education through Free the Children schools, we have absolutely no insight into who these children are, what they are being taught or who is teaching them. Perhaps this is understandable, since here in Canada our ten provinces and three territories have yet to agree on one national standard for educational structure. However, coming from a nation that has yet to determine how best to educate its youth, it is interesting to see that the Kielburger brothers, themselves both without academic certification as educators in Canada or abroad, have been given the authority 1 27

to spearhead educational programming for children in more than 45 countries around the world. While it may be the case that the educational component is left entirely up to the local communities to develop and administer, this in itself is an important detail notably absent from Free the Children messaging. An organization built upon a foundational philosophy of improving the lives of children and families through education, it seems necessary that Free the Children be involved in the administration of education within the schools they build. At this time, the nature and degree of involvement by Free the Children in local education decisions is largely unclear.

As this brief divergence shows, the analysis presented in this paper only begins to scratch the surface of the many questions that can be asked of any organization that has been as successful as Free the Children has been. The intent of the analysis, supported by theories of gift, myth, ritual and an understanding of Development Discourse, is to expose some of the inconspicuous ways in which this organization is impacting the local and global community. North American youth who "join the movement" are required to make a "commitment to change" prior to participating in Free the Children events (Free the Children, 2009h). While the message is continually one of broad general terms regarding changing the world for the better, close analysis of the messaging indicates that youth are being encouraged to take very prescribed actions which ultimately support only one cause (building 128

schools and clean water projects in rural international communities) and one organization (Free the Children). Indeed, advocacy on the behalf of Free the Children is a fundamental component of the leadership and empowerment programs provided through Free the Children and Me to We. As a result, the hundreds of thousands of youth that are touched each year through various Free the Children programs are encouraged not simply to join a movement of positive social action, but very specifically to support the international development goals of this one organization.

Hundreds of thousands of Canadian youth are joining Free the Children's efforts to change the world, a movement that has been largely accepted as altruistic, fundamentally nonpolitical and existing outside the domain of economic exchange. However, as David Cheal (1988) suggests, gifts such as the volunteer work and building projects like those coordinated by Free the Children exist within a type of moral economy, which serves to extend and reproduce social relations. Governed by rules of reciprocity, social ties are established and maintained by the giving and receiving of gifts. If this is in fact the case, then strong social bonds are being developed between the

North American volunteers and fundraisers and the citizens of the Global

South who receive help. In fact, according to Free the Children data, more than 45 countries and 500 individual communities have developed bonds with the organization through the receiving of new schools and clean water 129

systems. With such an intricate connection of nations through the bond of the gift, the work Free the Children does internationally cannot possibly claim to be 'aneconomic', as we know the gift to exist within close relation to the circle of the economy. As the amount of funds raised increases the impact of the organization and profit back to the organization and its founders also increases. While profit does not take the form of direct financial gain as it would in the case of corporations, the Kielburger brothers certainly benefit from Free the Children's success. As the not-for-profit increases its reach and impact as an organization, Craig and Marc Kielburger also increase their visibility and their credibility as experts in the field of international development. In the past fifteen years, the two brothers have gained significant notoriety both in Canada and internationally, as evidenced through their syndicated newspaper column, their numerous public speaking engagements, their appearance on the Oprah Winfrey Show, the Colbert Report and numerous Canadian news media shows. In addition to their significant media coverage, the brothers have also earned numerous awards and accolades including the prestigious Order of Canada. Certainly these are benefits earned from the increased success of the Free the Children organization, and it can be seen largely in the increased visibility and credibility of Marc and Craig Kielburger. 130

Finally, as discussed through the combination of theories of ideology and myth, the implications of engaging youth to spread the message of Free the Children and provide support to international communities is incredibly complicated. Beginning with the myth of the child, or in this case two young boys, the organization roots itself in myth of the innocence of the child. First, the story of Iqbal Masih a young boy who spoke out against his oppressors and suffered a terrible fate as a result, and then the story of Craig Kielburger, who believed Iqbal's story was worth telling and his mission worth continuing. The indisputable innocence of youth provides an impenetrable foundation upon which Free the Children as an organization is built. The youthful desire to do good deeds has perpetuated the notion that this organization can do only good. The noble goal of ending child labour has somehow ensured that the actions of these socially conscious North American youth are perceived as exclusively positive. The work of Fairclough and Barthes provides valuable insight to this belief in the altruistic nature of youth. Importantly, their separate theories suggest that what we hold as universal truths are not necessarily accurate depictions of reality, but instead are social constructs which serve to reinforce greater ideological forces. The innocence of the child, the good natured characteristics of the volunteer, the valuable and effective nature of the gift provided without expectation of anything in return, are all examples of universally held truths that obscure the actual relations that exist. 131

According to Barthes (1982), modern myths are created for a reason, to perpetuate the idea of a society that adheres to the current ideologies of the ruling class, and this example of Free the Children is no exception. The co-founders of Free the Children, the Kielburger brothers themselves are ultimately responsible for setting out the mission and values of the organization. Two young Canadian men who were raised in a suburb of Toronto and still call this city home. As boys they wanted simply to make a difference and there is no question that they have been successful in achieving this goal. The nature of the change they have enacted, however, may not be all be what they were expecting. Over the course of 15 years they have catapulted to international fame, they have become unquestioned experts in global issues. As Free the Children has grown from a small advocacy group to a multi-million dollar charity, the Kielburger brothers have gone from young dreamers to co-founders of a successful charity and a legally separate yet philosophically united social enterprise. The work that Free the Children is doing is no longer a simple matter of children wanting to make a difference as the organization has grown across borders and has begun having significant impact on communities around the world. Although the organization is careful to measure everything from the number of schools built, health kits distributed or water wells dug, the broader reaching cultural impact has largely gone unreported, and potentially not even investigated by the charity itself. Given the possibility for both positive and negative -132

ramifications of these collective actions by the hundreds of thousands of youth currently supporting Free the Children, further exploration beyond what has begun within these pages is mandatory in order to accurately measure, understand and, if necessary, mediate the organization's physical and cultural impact both in Canada and abroad. 133

References

Barthes, R. (1982). Myth Today. In S. Sontag, A Barthes Reader (pp. 93- 149). Toronto, ON: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Ltd. Cheal, D. (1988). The Gift Economy. New York, NY: Routledge. Cornwall, A. (2007). Buzzwords and Fuzzwords: Deconstructing Development Discourse. Development in Practice , 17 (4-5), 471-484. CTV News. (2009, October 5). We Day Toronto. Retrieved November 29, 2009 from CTV News: http://weday.ctv.ca/Home/WeDayToronto Da Matta, R. (1977). Constraint and License: A preliminary study of two Brazilian national rituals. In S. F. Moore, & B. G. Myerhoff, Secular Ritual (pp. 244-264). Amsterdam: Van Gorcum. Dale, D. (2009, October 6). Star-filled We Day Gets Youth Fired Up. Retrieved November 29, 2009 from The Toronto Star: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/705985--star-filled-we-day-gets- youths-fired-up Derrida, J. (1992). Given Time: I. Counterfeit Money. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Durkheim, E. (1995). The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. (K. E. Fields, Trans.) New York, NY: Free Press. Emerson, R. W. (1997). Gifts. In A. D. Schrift, The Logic of the Gift (pp. 25- 27). New York, NY: Routledge. 134

Escobar, A. (1997). The Making and Unmaking of the Third World Through Development. In M. Rahnema, & V. Bawtree, The Post-Development Reader {pp. 85-93). Halifax, NS: Fernwood Publishing, Ltd. Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1966). Introduction. In M. Mauss, The Gift: Formsand Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies (pp. v-x). London, England:

Cohen & West Ltd.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. New York, NY: Longman Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. New York, NY: Routledge. Free the Children. (2009a). About Us. Retrieved November 29, 2009, from Free the Children: http://www.freethechildren.com/aboutus/index.php Free the Chldren. (2009b). Corporate Brochure. Toronto: Free the Children. Free the Children. (2009c). Homepage. Retrieved November 29, 2009 from Free the Children: http://www.freethechildren.com/aboutus/history.php Free the Children. (2009d). History. Retrieved November 29, 2009 from Free the Children: http://www.freethechildren.com/aboutus/history.php Free the Children. (2009e). Mission. Retrieved 1113, 2009 from http://www.freethechildren.com/aboutus/misson.php Free the Children. (2009f). Progress. Retrieved November 29, 2009, from Free the Children: http://www.freethechildren.com/aboutus/progress.php 135

Free the Children. (2009g). We Day. Retrieved November 13, 2009 from http://www.freethechildren.com/weday/ Free the Chldren. (2009h). 2008 Annual Report. Toronto: Free the Children. Freiré, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc. Godbout, J. T. (2000). Homo Donator versus Homo Oeconomicus. In A. Vandevelde (Ed.), Gifts and Interests (pp. 23-46). Leuven, Belgium:

Peeters Publishers.

Godbout, J. T. (2000). The World of the Gift. (A. Caillé, Ed., & D. Winkler, Trans.) Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen's University Press. Godelier, M. (1999). The Enigma of the Gift. (N. Scott, Trans.) Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Gorlick, A. (2008, November 5). For kids, altruism comes naturally, psychologist says. Stanford Report. Retrieved February 5, 2010 from: http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/november5/tanner- 1 10508.html?view=print Jenkins, T. (1998). Derrida's Reading of Mauss. In W. James, & N. Allen (Eds.), Marcel Mauss: A Centenary Tribute (pp. 83-94). New York, NY: Berghan Books. Kapoor, I. (2008). The Postcolonial Politics of Development. New York, NY: Routledge. 136

Kertzer, D. I. (1988). Ritual, Politics and Power. Binghamton, NY: Vali-Ballou

Press.

Kielburger, C, & Major, K. (1999). Free the Children: A Young Man Fights Against Child Labor and Proves that Children Can Change the World. Harper Perennia. Kielburger, M., & Kielburger, C. (2006). Me to We: Finding Meaning in a Material World. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Komter, A. E. (2005). Social Solidarity and the Gift. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Kress, Günther., van Leeuwen, Theo. (2006). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. 2nd Edition. New York, NY: Routledge. Lévi-Strauss, C. (1997). Selections from the Introduction to the Work of Marcel Mauss. In A. D. Schrift (Ed.), The Logic of the Gift (pp. 45-69).

New York, NY: Routledge. Mallios, S. (2006). The Deadly Politics of Giving: Violence and Exchange at Ajacan, Roanoke and Jamestown. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama

Press.

Mauss, M. (1966). The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies. London, England: Cohen & West Ltd. Me to We. (2009a). About Us. Retrieved November 29, 2009, from Me to We: http://www.metowe.com/aboutus/ 137

Me to We. (2009b). Me to We: Our Philosophy. Retrieved November 29, 2009 from Me to We: http://www.metowe.com/aboutus/philosophy.php Me to We. (2010a). Home. Retrieved April 9, 2010, from Me to We: http://www.metowe.com/ Me to We. (2010b) Leadership. Retrieved April 1 1 , 2010, from Me to We: http://www.metowe.com/leadership/ Osteen, M. (2002). The Question of the Gift: Essays Across Disciplines. New York, NY: Routledge. Phillips, L., & Jorgensen, M. W. (2002). Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London, England: Sage Publications Ltd. Rist, G. (2007). Development as a buzzword. Development in Practice , 17 (4-5), 485-491 . Sachs, W. (1997). The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power. New York, NY: Palgrave, A Division of St. Martin's Press, LLC. Sahlins, M. (1997). The Spirit of the Gift. In A. D. Schrift, The Logic of the Gift: Toward an Ethic of Generosity (pp. 70-99). New York, NY: Routledge. Schrift, A. D. (1997). Why Gift? In A. D. Schrift (Ed.), The Logic of the Gift (pp. 1-22). New York, NY: Routledge. Silber, I. (1998). Modern Philanthropy: Reassessing the Viability of a Maussian Perspective. In W. James, & N. Allen, Marcel Mauss: A Centenary Tribute (pp. 134-150). Providence, Rl: Berghahn Books. 133

Sogge, D. (2002). Give and Take: What's the Matter with Foreign Aid? New York, NY: Palgrave, a division of St Martin's Press, LLC. Stirrat, R., & Henkel, H. (1997). The Development Gift: The Problem of Reciprocity in the NGO World. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 554, 66-80. Stokke, O. (1996). Foreign aid towards the year 2000: Experiences and Challenges. Portland, OR: Frank Cass. Testart, A. (1998). Uncertainties of the Obligation to Reciprocate': A Critique of Mauss. In W. James, & N. J. Allen (Eds.), Marcel Mauss: A Centenary Tribute (pp. 97-110). New York, NY: Berghahn Books. The Associated Press. (1995). Battled Child Labor, Boy, 12, Murdered. Islamabad, Pakistan. Turner, V. (1969). The Ritual Process: structure and anti-structure. Chicago,

Illinois: Aldine. Uvin, P. (2007). From the Right to Development to the Rights-Based Approach: How 'Human Rights' Entered Development. Development in Practice , 17 (4-5), 597-606. van Gennep, A. (1960). The Rites of Passage. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Vandevelde, A. (2000). Gifts and Interests. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters. Wingrove, J. (2010, March 20). The Right Brothers. The Globe and Mail, p.

F1 139

Wodak, R. (2004). Critical Discourse Analysis. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium, & D. Silverman, Qualitative Research Practice (pp. 185-202). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.