Commoditising Cancer and the Problem with “Pinkwashing”
Perhaps one of the most ubiquitous symbols associated with an awareness campaign, the “pink ribbon” which has come to stand symbolically for breast cancer is a fairly commonplace sight in supermarkets, department stores, and across the internet. Behind the pink ribbon is an implication of “awareness raising” for a good cause– a disease which needs funding to be researched and cured. These implications of social awareness and responsibility are powerful social symbols, but in recent years, breast cancer awareness campaigns have come under scrutiny for the practice which has been called “pinkwashing”– in essence, the idea that companies use the pink ribbon in order to capitalise on a sense of moral obligation to donate to cancer research and profit from the disease in this way.
The pink ribbon symbol was first used by the Susan G Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, which appropriated the ribbon symbol from a contemporary AIDS awareness campaign (which had, in turn, adapted the idea from a campaign to support American troops abroad). 1992 became known as “The Year of the Ribbon” to the New York Times, a testament to the adhesive power this symbol attained. As a symbol, it was both iconic and easily worn and displayed, and it was quickly adopted in a range of colours for a number of social causes. The Komen foundation has used the pink ribbon as a symbol for its fundraising efforts for years, but recent scrutiny over the way the Komen foundation spends its funding has also brought the symbol under scrutiny. Reuters reported:
“The organization’s 2011 financial statement reports that 43 percent of donations were spent on education, 18 percent on fund-raising and administration, 15 percent on research awards and grants, 12 percent on screening and 5 percent on treatment.”
The low figure reported for research and grants is a figure that has decreased from previous years, flagging up frustration that the organization was not using its donated funding to adequately support the cause it claimed to be championing. On top of this, organizations such as “Think Before You Pink” have emerged to question the ways in which the pink ribbon is used and displayed, claiming that awareness has its place, but that the symbol can also be used to bolster sales without actually making an impact in the way way Breast Cancer is researched and prevented. “Think Before You Pink”‘s history of the pink ribbon makes an interesting point:
“There is a value to awareness, but awareness of what, and to what end?” asks Barbara Brenner, activist and executive director of Breast Cancer Action (BCA) in San Francisco. “We need changes in the direction the research is going, we need access to care—beyond mammograms—we need to know what is causing the disease, and we need a cure. The pink ribbon is not indicative of any of that.”
From an anthropological perspective, it is interesting to consider the way the pink ribbon functions as both an ambassador for a cause and, in the minds of many, as a distraction and a mode of garnering profit without substantially contributing to research and prevention of a disease.
For more information on the Komen foundation and the concerns that have arisen with regards to its spending, please see Reuters here: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/02/08/us-usa-healthcare-komen-research-idUSTRE8171KW20120208
For a counter argument against “Pinkwashing” and to learn more about this history of the expression, see “Think Before You Pink” here: http://thinkbeforeyoupink.org/before-you-buy/history-of-the-pink-ribbon/
Contributed by SabrinaRusso on 26/01/2015
