Portrayals of the Poor on the Cusp of Capitalism

Abstract

An entrepreneurial image of the poor is becoming quite popular among nonprofit organizations, especially with the growing use of micro-finance models. The present study explores the promotional materials of a religious, charitable, nonprofit organization—Heifer International—whose mission is to eradicate poverty. The findings suggest that the organization’s portrayal of the poor “pasteurizes” the image of the poor and positions them as happy, healthy workers who exist as “enterprising” people on the cusp of capitalism. In addition, the nonprofit positions itself on the cusp of capitalism by way of three strategies: perspective by incongruity, dissoi logoi/kairos, and the art of illusion.

Keywords

nonprofit organizations entrepreneurial model promotional materials poverty rhetorical interpretive analysis dirty work

Eradicating poverty is the goal of numerous nonprofit organizations each of which provides a conceptualization of “poverty” and of “the poor.” Such conceptualizations are materialized through visual and verbal promotional materials that in turn spread to the public. It is the promotional materials that speak to the public of the poor that are central to this study. These promotional materials are rhetorical statements meant to raise funds by managing an image of who the poor are and what constitutes poverty. All such rhetorical statements are, of course, partial and represent a specific ideological stance. Recent work suggests that these partial portrayals of the poor may be perceived as the whole truth and that certain kinds of such portrayals may be damaging to the poor as they support limited images meant to support questionable solutions grounded in neoliberal capitalism (Asen, 2002; Holmer Nadesan, 2010; Holmer Nadesan & Trethewey, 2000).¹ If this is the case, then it is crucial that organizational communication scholars attend to the rhetorical means by which such portrayals are achieved.

One such recent and popular solution to ending poverty is through micro-financing (Morduch, 1999, 2000; Papa, Auwal, & Singhal, 1997), which has given birth to the portrayal of the poor as entrepreneurs. Even when micro-financing is not at the heart of the solution, the portrayal of entrepreneurship is often invoked (e.g., Dempsey, 2009; Harter, Edwards, McClanahan, Hopso, & Carson-Stern, 2004; Novak & Harter, 2008; Scott, 2007). Entrepreneurial characterization of people in need is rabid in nonprofit materials and approaches to ending poverty. Micro-finance models of ending poverty rely on the construction of the poor as entrepreneurs and perpetuate the “enterprising” subject. This study aims to explore the rhetorical means employed to create the poor as enterprising subjects.

Micro-Finance Movement

Micro-finance was initiated by Muhammad Yunus with the goal to alleviate poverty in Bangladesh by providing small loans to people, typically turned away by lenders of the formal banking system (Morduch, 2000), thus prey to unscrupulous money lenders. Yunus initiated the micro-finance movement by developing the Grameen Bank, which now serves as a legitimized movement and a role model for other micro-finance programs (Morduch, 1999). Indeed, Yunus garnered such respect for his work that he received the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize (Armendariz & Morduch, 2010). However, his work has been met with some criticism, especially for its concertive control (Barker, 1993) where “field workers” supervising the loan repayment for the bank reportedly work excessive hours to help the recipients achieve repayment goals (Papa et al., 1997). But this criticism rolls off the back of proponents for the system. For instance, Grameen America’s CEO Steven Vogel unapologetically asserted that micro-financing is not charity; it is capitalism at work and he whole-heartedly supports a strategy of peer pressure to bring about high repayment rates (see Bentley, 2012). Research has also criticized the entrepreneurial model for promoting the “middle class imaginary” (Harter et al., 2004) and being exclusionary, racist, and patriarchal (Clair & Anderson, 2012, Dempsey, 2009). Thus, the entrepreneurial portrayal of the poor calls for closer examination.

Entrepreneurial Portrayals of the Poor

Several scholars have been studying portrayals of the poor linked in one way or another to the image of entrepreneurship. For instance, Harter et al. (2004) studied a nonprofit organization called StreetWise to identify the discursive means used to describe the homeless and their journey back into “productive” society. StreetWise, a Chicago-based independent street journal focusing on issues of poverty while serving as a critique of capitalism, is filled with articles about grassroots movements to end poverty and contains the personal stories of the homeless men and women trying to regain control of their lives; some have been addicted to drugs, others have recently been released from prison. To regain respectability, it is important to the men and women that they are not simply given a handout for selling the paper on street corners, but are treated as having a business, as being “vendors.” Instead of emphasizing their role as employees, the StreetWise stories frame the vendors as “independent entrepreneurs working their way toward success” (pp. 412-413).

Novak and Harter (2008) further examined the ways in which StreetWise promoted the homeless as entrepreneurs and highlighted how the vendors talked about their selling and writing articles for StreetWise as a “real job” (see Clair, 1996, for a discussion of political implications of the colloquialism). The vendors attached great importance to being seen as respectable and having a job. Their everyday talk incorporated the language of employees, including working shifts and taking breaks often associated with a “business,” but, we believe, is more characteristic of employees than owners. That is, these particular people may have seen themselves as less-than empowered by an entrepreneurial metaphor.

Dempsey (2009) also examined contemporary images of the poor created by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in a case study of an environmental justice NGO and focused on the ways in which “communicative labor” produced an image of grassroots initiatives and of the poor in particular. She detailed the means—“good stories”—used by the NGO to build a compelling and persuasive image that would support the overarching goals of the organization. The NGO followed contracted consultants’ advice to portray the poor as entrepreneurs, emphasizing “individual responsibility and the entrepreneurial spirit” (p. 340). Dempsey (2009) noted entrepreneurial discourse contributed to “exclusionary” practices and urged further study.

Taking up that call, Clair and Anderson (2012) reported exclusionary tendencies in their study of micro-finance models’ images of the poor. They examined the way that Kiva, a micro-finance organization, portrayed the recipients on its website, often picturing the poor as entrepreneurs needing a small loan to become more successful in their established business ventures. During their analysis of the visual and textual components of the Kiva website, the authors found that the definition of the poor put forth there was exclusionary and metonymic in nature, leaving out, for example, the destitute, children, the aged, and the unskilled. The poor, defined as entrepreneurs, were portrayed as healthy, young adults to middle-aged, more men than women, from under-industrialized countries, and skilled, often already having a business that they want to expand to better their lives.

However, the impoverished in general are not always portrayed as entrepreneurs-in-the-making. Some portrayals suggest that the poor cannot reverse their fortunes; their hopes of becoming entrepreneurs are futile. For example, Loehwing (2010) studied the documentary film, Reversal of Fortune, and argued that the documentary portrayed the homeless as hopeless via the “unforgiving minute of the present” (p. 380). The documentary is based on a social experiment: The film maker provides a homeless man with US$100,000 and then chronicles his unfolding life. Within 6 months the man was financially worse off than before receiving the windfall. Loehwing argued that homelessness is cast as a problem of “tense,” that the homeless man lives in the present—day-to-day—unable to set money aside for the future or develop future-oriented goals. The documentary film was discussed on an Oprah Show. Based on both media (the documentary and the Oprah Show) portrayals of the poor led viewers toward “a future-oriented perspective of the empowered citizen” (p. 397).²

Constructions of temporality and poverty have also been applied to specific groups and then linked to the group members’ ability to be enterprising. When the marginalized are portrayed as living in the past, stereotypes and a politics of colonization/imperialism are reinforced (Rosaldo, 1986). These “pastoral portrayals” of “Others” exemplifies what Kenneth Burke (1969) called “the rhetoric of courtship between contrasted social classes” (p. 123). In other words the pastoral portrayal “permits a polite tenderness” that also allows for patronizing “condescension” (p. 97). One might be able to become an entrepreneur, only within a limited capacity as there are no images of technologies, skyscrapers, or stock indexes in these types of portrayals, and these rustic pictures of the poverty are rife with paradox (Dempsey, 2009; Harter et al., 2004; Novak & Harter, 2008). These pastoral paradoxes are turning up in “history, literature, advertising, and many other unlikely places” (Clifford, 1986, p. 23).

All of this can be called imagery as Papa et al. (1997) argued. They studied the actual Grameen Bank fieldworkers’ day-to-day lives as they interacted with the recipients of micro-financed loans and found the recipients often to be struggling with illness and inability to repay the loan, but images of them never addressed illness or starvation (Clair & Anderson, 2012). Harter et al. (2004) suggested that these portrayals are supporting “the moral imaginary of the middle class (i.e., the ideology of meritocracy) and the cultural myth about self-sufficiency” (p. 417). According to these criticisms, the characterizations (or attributes) of the loan recipients (e.g., self-sufficient, healthy, able-bodied, skilled adults of average age with some means, etc.) support a partial view of who the poor are and what constitutes poverty. This metonymic view features an attribute (the enterprising side) rather than the whole person (Clair, 2013; Novak & Harter, 2008). One might be an enterprising person, but when that is all that is portrayed, the portrayal lacks depth.

Although a partial image may be constraining, some might argue that a partial image is better than none at all. Perhaps, but it is important to note that each image (partial or not) carries a particular ideology. Today, charitable organizations may be facing undue pressure to incorporate a business model and construct the poor as “entrepreneurs” as in the cases studied by Dempsey (2009) and Novak and Harter (2008), as these images may promote an ideology that is questionable concerning care for those in need.

Additional studies of visual and textual promotional materials of charitable organizations that intentionally support enterprising practices are needed, especially those without direct connections to the micro-finance world, which may demonstrate unique means of portraying the impoverished and poverty in relation to the entrepreneurial agenda. Charitable organizations that rely on the entrepreneurial model, especially those with a religious foundation, may be walking a tightrope between altruism and capitalism. Applying a hermeneutics of suspicion (Ricoeur, 1970) to the texts of such organizations should provide a deeper understanding of the dilemma.

A Critical-Interpretive Analysis of Heifer International’s Promotional Materials

Heifer International

Heifer International began with an epiphany when a Midwestern farmer, Dan West, volunteered for the Church of the Brethren in Spain during the Spanish Civil War where he rationed cups of milk to hungry children, and one day, realized that “These children don’t need a cup, they need a cow” (Heifer International, n.d., History). When West returned to the United States, he founded Heifer International, and by 1944 17 heifers had been delivered to Puerto Rico. The family recipients had to make just one promise—to pass on the gift by way of giving the heifer’s offspring to other families in need. The organization considers “passing on the gift” their main strategy to end hunger and poverty and to care for the earth. They believe “ending poverty is a large feat but it’s not unrealistic” (Heifer International, n.d., History).

Dempsey (2009) described Heifer International as using the entrepreneurial approach. “Two of the most widely praised examples of micro-enterprises includes the Grameen Bank, which awards small start-up loans, and Heifer International, an international NGO providing families with income-generating animals and livestock through a donor system” (p. 332). Heifer International predates the contemporary micro-finance movement by more than 50 years, has a decidedly religious (Christian) ideology and describes itself as a charitable organization. However, this does not mean that it does not also rely on a capitalist model. As a nonprofit organization that conjures images of micro-enterprise for some and religious giving by others (and perhaps both simultaneously for yet others), Heifer International provides a particularly useful case to explore to better understand how established nonprofits without direct links to micro-finance portray the poor and position themselves in the present neoliberal capitalist discourse.

Heifer International’s promotional materials have received multiple awards, thus positioning their portrayals of the poor and their solution to poverty as a role model for other nonprofits to emulate. In 2012 alone, Heifer International received multiple Addy Awards³ for a book and other communications (Heifer International, n.d., awards; Upchurch, 2012). Award-winning photographer, Darcy Kiefel and graphic artist, Nancy Ferrara combined the photographs with “inspirational quotes from Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandella and other world figures” (n.p.) to complete the award-winning book, One World, One Family. The book relies heavily on the photos and quotes used in the organization’s catalogs. Subsequently, it is the award-winning catalogs which are mailed to the public.

Document analysis

To explore the visual and textual materials in question, we relied on Finnegan’s (2003) theoretical and methodological advice, which provides five main principles:

(1) Documentary photographs are not merely “evidence,” but are by their very nature rhetorical; (2) photographic meaning is not fixed or univocal, but neither is it relativistic; (3) photographs cannot productively be separated from the texts they accompany, nor should they be viewed as mere supplements to those texts; (4) photographs created for public purposes are best studied in the contexts of the print culture through which they circulate; and (5) all images, including photographs, are the products of a particular visual culture that values and privileges certain forms of visual expression over others. (p. xv)

In keeping with these five tenets, we began with a descriptive analysis, and then related those descriptions to past portrayals of the poor as entrepreneurs (linked to specific characterizations mentioned earlier). Our interpretive analysis relied on past organizational communication literature and on the rhetorical contributions of Kenneth Burke, which will become clearer as the analysis unfolds. Finally, we situated the rhetorical document and its portrayal of the poor in the larger context to address the positioning of the poor and of Heifer International within the capitalist landscape.

Heifer International Promotional Materials

Heifer International’s website is www.heifer.org. At the top of the web page a 3-inch deep header spans the entire width of the screen. It is dominated by two boxes of text, one on the left with changing texts and one on the right with permanent text advertising the cover of the gift catalog with a link to “Give now.” The text in the left-hand box alternates between messages advertising the catalog, promoting that viewers choose an animal with their child to donate and highlighting their recent U.S. project. In a small box in the upper right corner is the number of people who give this site “a thumbs up”—7,470. Links provided are: Our Work, Get Involved, Visit, GIVE, Inside Heifer, Media, and Ideas in Action. We have capitalized GIVE to indicate its emphasis on the web page by being blocked in red. Under this banner, one finds the motto—Charitable Gift Giving that Makes a Difference. Additional links are provided to take the viewer to the catalog and/or to direct giving. Under “News Items” are four links: (a) Heifer Begins New U.S. Based Project, (b) Heifer in 60 Seconds, (c) Shift Your Holiday Gift, and (d) Building a World of Peace and Prosperity. Taking advantage of social media, Heifer International has a facebook presence as well as a twitter account, a Heifer blog, and YouTube videos. Paper catalogs as well as on-line promotional materials were collected for analysis. Early stages of our investigation revealed a heavy reliance on their holiday catalog, to which we give special attention.

Heifer International’s Holiday Catalogs

Heifer International’s holiday catalogs provide photographic images of the recipients. The catalogs are mailed each year during the “holiday” season. Every page of the holiday catalog shows at least one, sometimes two or three, photos of smiling individuals usually posed with animals they have received from Heifer International (Figure 1). Captions, stories, and inspirational quotes fill the 32-page-long catalogs.

Figure 1.

An example from the catalog that shows multiple images of recipients smiling with their “gift.”

Photographs

The people appear in colorful clothing usually standing in the sun and always have something in their hands, usually the small animals (or they appear next to an animal (e.g., a baby goat, chicken, pig, sheep, angora rabbits, or a heifer) or the animals’ by-products (e.g., a cup of milk, a handful of eggs). The images speak of a worldwide population in terms of race and include men, women, and children featured alone and together. Those who are not smiling are pictured in other loving poses (e.g., a boy is kissing his alpaca). There is one exception; young children (around the ages of 2-3 years or younger) are generally not smiling. In general, the individuals are not stiffly posed, but not unaware of the camera either as they are smiling for their portrait.

These photographs do not stand alone. Accompanying text appears in a variety of forms, including titles, captions, narratives, and supportive endorsements. We begin by addressing the titles and captions before moving to the stories.

Titles

Titles appear on every other page and often reinforce the theme of the catalog, which is on the cover, buying a gift for those in need. Inside titles include such wording as the following: Heifer for the Holidays; Gift of Goats; Pigs as Presents; Sheep: Shear Joy; Wrapping Paper, Ribbons, . . . and Rabbits; Christmas Chicks; Holiday Buzz . . . Gift of Honeybees; Light Up A Life . . . With Llamas; Boxes, Bows, and Buffalo, and so on. These are catchy, playful, and incorporate puns or alliteration.

Captions

Captions under the photos provide the first and last names of the individuals, the age of children, and the country in which the subjects live along with a positive assessment of Heifer International’s gift. Countries include, for example, Honduras, Nicaragua, Haiti, Armenia, Romania, Bolivia, Ecuador, Philippines, Cambodia, and Kenya. Most recently they have added photos of U.S. recipients. Commonly, one finds a caption like the one on the opening page of the 2010 catalog situated under a picture of two women dressed in traditional clothes (woolen blankets wrapped about their shoulders and each wearing traditional Ecuadorean fedoras), one holding a lamb, the other a spool of yarn. The caption reads: “In Ecuador, Maria Cepeda (right) and Maria Yatabuoh demonstrate how they make yarn from the wool of the Heifer sheep” (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Maria Cepeda and Maria Yatabuoh showing how they make yarn from their sheep’s wool.

Narrative statements

Narrative statements for our purposes are longer and more detailed than the captions discussed in the previous section. For example, on page 5 of the 2010 catalog we found the story titled “The Timba Family’s Heifer is Helping Them Escape Hunger.” The story of Irene and Pythias Timba from Zambia tells of how they skipped meals so that their children could eat and even still their children were malnourished until Heifer came into their lives. Their new cow produces “three gallons of milk each day. What they don’t drink they sell for income.” Their “increased income” allows them to “buy mosquito nets.” And the Timba’s have paid the gift forward by giving their first heifer’s offspring to “another family in need—continuing the cycle of empowerment that you will ignite by giving the gift of a heifer.” The stories are quite similar across catalogs, and as Heifer International points out the challenges may be different for different families, but the outcome is the same—families in need receive “nutrition and income” (p. 7). Some stories mention recipients needing training on how to care for the animals or how to make yogurt; other recipients are described as experienced, as in the case of Ibrahim Gashi of Kosova who lost his herd of sheep during the war. Ibrahim had “years of experience” and was able to turn his Heifer gift into a “flock totaling 10 ewes and one ram” (p. 11). Within a year, he was able to pass on the gift. And Susanna Mashkovich of Armenia, who grew up in a rural orphanage, feels more connected to the world: “We are isolated from city life, but Heifer brings us closer through our bees and the sale of our honey. We don’t feel so alone with the presence of Heifer International. We are very grateful” (p. 17). The subtitle of this story is “Honeymaking Means Moneymaking,” and the story concludes with a pun and a call to action: “So many young futures are sweeter today thanks to the gift of honeybees from friends like you!” (p. 17).

A slightly different story is told by a 12-year-old girl and conveyed in the form of a letter (using Segoe Print type style) meant to look as if it has been hand-written by the girl. She is from Uganda and as the result of Heifer’s gift (a goat) her mother is able to earn enough money to put a roof on their house, buy her a school uniform, and send her to school (Figure 3). The child, Beatrice Biir from Uganda is portrayed as having written a flawless two-page story summarizing how thrilled she is by her ability to attend school:

It was the best day in my life!

Figure 3.

Beatrice Biir and her two-page story about attending school.

Near the end of the catalog the “Gift of a Lifetime: $25,000” is explained as the means to empower

hungry families to lift themselves from poverty to self-reliance. Your gift will reach men, women and children who are on the brink of starvation and help them raise livestock and grow crops to provide sustainable sources of food and income. (p. 28)

Supporting discourse

Endorsements are found throughout the catalog and assert a nonpartisan political image. For example, Barbara Bush, Former First Lady, is quoted as saying “Heifer International has brought dignity and self-reliance to families in need . . . with its brilliantly simple solution—livestock and training for food and income.” This comment is juxtaposed to a quote by Former President Bill Clinton, which reads: “Because of Heifer hundreds of thousands of families are able to feed their children …. You bring hope and triumph of the human spirit.” Other endorsements speak to Heifer’s absolute “respect for indigenous culture,” “the simplicity of its approach,” “give a man fish . . . teach a man to fish” philosophy, and concludes with the following: “ . . . with all the grandiose plans conceived to conquer poverty, sometimes all it takes to save a child is a goat.” The majority of endorsements, actually all but one, suggest that eradicating poverty is simple.

Portrayals of the Poor and the Heifer International Solution

Following Finnegan’s (2003) advice we assessed the portrayals of the poor by exploring text and photographs. Taken together the portrayal is positive and hopeful, filled with possibility. The metaphorically sunny outlook is materialized in the sunny photos of smiling individuals. Furthermore, every individual is represented in a pose holding something; their hands are not empty, no reaching out the empty hands of beggars or starving people. Instead, they hold animals, or the reins of an animal’s harness, they sip from a cup of milk, hold spools of yarn, kneed cheese balls, and display eggs. Not only are they not beggars, they are active and engaging people. If inexperienced, they are receiving training, and each story, caption, and photograph speaks of success, a bright future. Neither the dark side of poverty nor the grittier side of farming is shown; no one milks a goat, sheers a lamb, or scoops up dung for fertilizer.⁴

The photographic image of the people in need as healthy and happy is contrasted by stories of past malnutrition, illness, lack of education, and decent housing. As West (2000) suggests, such Kodak snapshots erase pain and trauma. Heifer portrays the people as living in the present and looking forward to the future. Poverty is in the past. The portrayals that project success rely on the present tense in a slightly different fashion from past studies. The present does not seem to be a single, static moment; instead, the present is the story of receiving a gift, and training if necessary, and continuing through to passing on the gift. In this case, individuals are not described as future thinking or as trapped by the past tense.

However, they are portrayed as living in rural, pastoral settings as suggested by Clifford (1986), which translates into patronizing “condescension” (Rosaldo, 1986, p. 97). In the case of Heifer International, one would expect the background to be associated with rural agriculture due to the mission of the organization, but the portrayals go beyond that. For instance, the land is portrayed as rich with greenery, and even though “Jacinto and his daughter at their family nursery” are planting seedlings “to help restore their surrounding Guatemalan forest” (p. 22) which has been decimated, there are no signs of drought, fire, or floods to explain the need for restoration or to mar the scene.

The text and photos conjoin to provide a portrayal of the poor as happy, healthy, active individuals. Heifer International provides a solution to end poverty through gifts of livestock and training along with the message to pass the gift along. The message is that Heifer International provides the ultimate gift and the best solution, one that will bring peace, joy, health, and happiness to the entire world as the title of the catalog suggest, The Most Important Gift Catalogue in the World and it is presently couched in an enterprising discourse.

Entrepreneurial Portrayals in Heifer Catalogs

Based on previous research, the entrepreneurial portrayal of the poor can be summarized as: people generally living in the past or in pastoral settings who are self-sufficient, healthy, able-bodied, skilled adults of average age with some means, and who are forward-thinking individuals who may engage in work-related jargon. In the previous section, we suggested that Heifer relies heavily on the idyllic image and connects it to entrepreneurialism or at the very least enterprising discourse to create a statement about the poor. That is to say, they are not supplying the viewer with evidence, but rather with rhetoric (Finnegan, 2003). Previous research by Harter et al. (2004) and Novak and Harter (2008) clearly asserted exceptions to the rural images as backdrop to the story of the poor with the urban street vender, but Heifer International relies heavily on the countryside setting for nearly all of the photographs and supporting stories. Furthermore, it relies on the past, but not entirely, as demonstrated through the simplicity of the agricultural model that is portrayed as small, family farms. No mention is made of modern farm equipment for milking cows or tractors for plowing. The rustic setting is portrayed as idyllic and free of modern contrivances. In this sense the recipients live in the past. Modern work-related jargon is rarely found in the quotes by recipients (although they occasionally speak of income—“the pigs are our only source of income . . . the future of our children” p. 9), but it is readily apparent in the descriptions provided by Heifer International. For example, they describe Susannah Mashkovich of Armenia as “earning an income through the sale of honey, beeswax, and pollen” (p. 16, italics added). Generally, this type of economic frame remains simple and tied to family farming. However, it is interesting to note that the language of the recipients does not allude to farming jargon either. Children do not mention doing chores and adults do not speak of herding, milking, or cultivating fields; instead, the recipients voice “empowerment,” successful “futures,” “new confidence,” and gratefulness to “the donor families” who must be “good people.” Success stories are not grounded in a micro-finance language (e.g., of being able to repay loans and seek another to expand a business); instead, Heifer International’s success stories speak of enterprising individuals who voice a liberal language of empowerment and gratitude.

The Heifer International materials include children, something not seen in entrepreneurial, micro-finance promotional materials (Clair & Anderson, 2012). With images of the recipients as rural farmers, that of children may be more acceptable; whereas, when the discourse invokes loans and businesses mentioning children could give rise to concerns about child labor. The Heifer recipients are portrayed as able-bodied and pictured as healthy and happy, but the images are not limited to middle-aged and young adults. For example, a gray-haired couple from Albania displays their goat for the camera.

Heifer International balances between the humble, rustic image of its recipients and a mild capitalist rhetoric. The poor are not entrepreneurs, but they may bring in a little cash for necessities or education. The recipients are not going to profit in any major economic way; they are going to sustain a pure, pastoral lifestyle without starving or suffering. The images and the texts suggest moderation in implementation of the entrepreneurial discourse.

In contrast to these happy individuals living in the picturesque countryside stands the lack of attention to the hard work, the “dirty work” of farming. Drawing from Hughes (1951), Ashforth and Kreiner (1999) defined dirty work as “tasks and occupations that are likely to be viewed as disgusting or degrading” (p. 413). Dirty work, according to these authors, fits within three categories: physical, social, or moral. While some professions might have an obvious “dirty” element to them (e.g., sanitation workers/garbage collectors), others are less obvious (e.g., nurses). Workers employed at such jobs or professions may be marginalized by society, their work constructed as less desirous, which can cause those workers to suffer “job judgment,” being judged by others based on their occupation (Clair, McConnell, Bell, Hackbarth, & Mathes, 2008, p. 11; also see Clair, 1996). Several scholars have contributed to the research on dirty work.

Tracy (2003, 2004) pointed out the stigmatizing nature of certain forms of dirty work in her research on correctional officers. In addition, Tracy and Trethewey (2005) highlighted the discursive dichotomizing of real work versus fake work in which dirty work is most often relegated to the inauthentic. This judgment and stigmatizing encourages people who do dirty work to separate themselves from that specific work identity, which leads them to reframe their work identity to a preferred self-identity (Tracy & Scott, 2006). Lucas (2011) noted that blue-collar workers (miners), who could be defined as doing dirty work, did not portray themselves this way. In fact they defined themselves in contrast to workers who did dirty work. Berkelaar, Buzzanell, Kisselburgh, Tan, and Shen (2012) discovered that Chinese children considered engineering a “dirty job.” This is an important finding because by contrast Americans consider engineering a profession.⁵ Nevertheless, we suggest that it is important to remember that dirty work is not a universalized discursive practice any more than is “real work” (Clair, 1996). The discursive construction of “work” may vary from person to person as well as cross-culturally and historically (Clair et al., 2008), and may be applied to practices that are not usually considered dirty work but have a negative connotation such as the finding that bullying might be described as “playing dirty” (Tracy, Lutgen-Sandvik, & Alberts, 2006). In a different vein, Drew, Mills, and Gassaway (2007) acknowledged that these fundamental and inherently necessary jobs are rarely a topic of general conversation in society. They explained that “there is an apparent understood obligation to protect society from its dirty work, and this stigmatizes (taints) its dirty workers” (p. 1). Following this train of thought, we explore how Heifer International “protects” its public from dirty work via its portrayals of the poor.

The Heifer International materials not only provide positive images of happy people positioned in sunny settings, but they carefully restrict the readers’ view of the dirty work associated with farming. No one shovels dung or cleans the chicken coop. Nor does anyone do “hard work” as in laborious work. Only one man is pictured hoeing in a field (he and his wife are planting seedlings) which appears to take little effort. No one milks a goat for the camera. Even beekeeping is described as not “physically difficult.” Hard work and dirty work are both hidden from view in the Heifer International materials, when one could easily associate such challenges with agricultural work. The portrayals are quite nearly pasteurized.

In short, the portrayals of the poor are pure; they are not tainted by actual dirt or by an association with greedy aspects of entrepreneurialism in any moral or social way. The entrepreneurial connections are couched in moderation, positioning the poor at the cusp of capitalism. That is, they are not only happy with small gifts but they have no intention of expanding into a business of any magnitude (i.e., with employees, overhead, stock, etc.). They will not seek a loan or compete with others. In this capacity, these poor remain nonthreatening to the “charitable” image of the organization and to the donors, as well.

We next turn to strategies by which Heifer International positions itself and its solution to poverty in the capitalist landscape. We assert that rhetorical strategies are used to place the organization’s portrayal of the poor and the organization itself on the cusp of capitalism.

Charitable Organizations on the Cusp of Capitalism

Heifer International deploys three main strategies through various tactics to achieve a delicate balance between charity and enterprising capitalism. These three strategies include perspective by incongruity, dissoi logoi/kairos, and the art of illusion and are explained in the following with examples.

Perspective by Incongruity

Burke’s (1935) concept of perspective by incongruity emerged from his readings of Nietzsche. Specifically, Burke wrote, “Nietzsche knew that probably every linkage was open to destruction by the perspective of planned incongruity” (p. 91). The idea is that by juxtaposing opposites into a single term or phrase a new perspective is deployed. Often times this new combination results in a perspective that is ironic if not humorous. Burke supplies the example of Veblen’s terminology “trained incapacities” (p. 91). While seeing the terms side by side makes the incongruity obvious, we believe the same effect can be achieved through subtler means. For instance, by promoting charity via a capitalist discourse, incongruity emerges.

The most obvious example of Heifer International’s use of perspective by incongruity is apparent in the overarching motif. Heifer International’s award-winning promotional materials are based primarily on the holiday catalogs. The catalogs are designed to look like commercial catalogs, using Christmas colors (i.e., red and green), holiday language (i.e., gifts, presents, ribbons, and bows) and an occasional product specifically named for Christmas (e.g., the Christmas chicks). The catalog is described as “The Most Important Gift Catalog in the World” suggesting that shopping for gifts for friends and relatives are clearly secondary to providing donations (“gifts”) to those in need. Designing the “holiday catalog” as a challenge to commercial catalogs acts as a form of counter-discourse; it satirically, even playfully, challenges capitalism’s commercialization of the religious holidays by invoking capitalism’s own rhetoric. It takes the energy of the commercialized holiday and its marketization and capitalizes on it. Put another way, it exploits capitalism. In short, it demonstrates perspective by incongruity.

Dissoi Logoi/Kairos

A second and far more frequently used strategy by Heifer International in its promotional materials is a unique form of dissoi logoi. Dissoi logoi may be the oldest documented form of logic, introduced by the Sophists in the 4th century bce. It originally referred to the truth claim of an argument (as counterarguments always exist) as being relative, especially in terms of temporality. That is, what is said is only true if what it refers to is true at the time. It was later challenged by the liar’s paradox (Bobzien, 2008). Today, dissoi logoi refers to the ability of a speaker to include within an argument its counterargument, suggesting that there is no definitive or absolute truth; yet, one argument is more often than not given preferential treatment (Johnson-Sheehan, 1998). This is distinct from perspective by incongruity in that perspective by incongruity combines terms to create one new synthesized concept; whereas, dissoi logoi allows the reader to see the two arguments and leads the audience in the direction of one. Dissoi logoi is closely related to kairos, which refers to the time, opportunity, and circumstances surrounding the rhetorical argument (Herrick, 2013). Poulakos and Poulakos (1999) explained kairos as taking advantage of the opportune moment, often in unexpected ways. We use it here to explore how Heifer International deflects criticism by including counterarguments in unique ways and at opportune moments.

Criticisms have been lodged against charitable organizations that promote an enterprising approach. One criticism is that these organizations promote specific ideological–political stances, demonstrated in having political ties to one party or another. Heifer International easily side-steps this issue in its promotional materials by providing a wide range of political celebrity endorsements that include prominent Republicans as well as Democrats (e.g., Bush and Clinton). Neither political party is shown favoritism. Thus, the criticism is deflected through dissoi logoi, done in an opportune fashion within the pages of promotional materials.

A second criticism of “enterprising nonprofits” is that they focus solely on underindustrialized countries, leaving the poor in the United States, for example, to fend for themselves. Heifer International attempted to address this concern, but with dubious results on its first attempt. In the 2010 catalog, the image of a White girl from Maine embracing her sheep was not accompanied with the usual text; instead, the caption simply reads, “In Houlton, Maine, a loving child adores her sheep.” The name of the child and relationship to poverty are absent. She could be any young girl from a 4-H club in the United States. This photo and caption were replaced in the 2011 catalog with an image of individuals in North Carolina (in Appalachia) digging dirt and a caption supplying the fore-grounded person’s name, city, and state along with a brief explanation of the project. The 2011 use of dissoi logoi (that Heifer International does not restrict itself to far away nations) is a far more successful attempt at persuasion. Appalachia has been associated with rural poverty and the information matches that of any other picture in the catalog.

A third criticism of these organizations is that they are not environmentally friendly. Heifer International attempts to thwart this criticism by using environmentally-friendly language. An example of such language is found under the photo of a smiling child holding a chicken. The caption reads, “Heifer chickens provide a sustainable source of nutrition to growing children around the world” (italics added). In addition, recall the story of Jacinto planting seedlings to restore the forest. The picture and caption taken together provide environmentally friendly rhetoric, but the reader is left wondering how the forest had been destroyed. Nix and Webb (n.d.) suggested the primary cause of deforestation of Guatemala has been the push of poorly designed agricultural models, giving grazing animals as stock has contributed to the problem. Heifer International has been criticized for contributing to such problems (“Livestock Gift Charities,” 2007; Messina, 2009; A Well-Fed World, n.d.). Thus, the dissoi logoi of including environmentally-friendly rhetoric may not be enough to dislodge the image of irresponsible practices.

Heifer International also attempts to present the solution to poverty as simple, which can certainly be criticized. However, the organizational materials use dissoi logoi again to head off any such criticism. The pages are filled with endorsements that suggest it is the simple, sole, and best solution for ending poverty, but then offer one contrasting argument: Dr. Jane Goodall’s endorsement positions Heifer International not as the sole solution, but as part of the larger solution to poverty. She writes, “Thus it is necessary to build conservation into a package—money for rural development programs, agroforestry, medical help, controlled tourism, etc. Heifer International fits absolutely right in with this overall plan.” Goodall’s quote is used as a form of dissoi logoi and is positioned near the end of the catalog (taking advantage of an opportune moment—kairos); that is, after establishing that Heifer International’s plan is the best solution to ending poverty, they provide a distinctly different perspective. Including this different perspective deflects criticism while maintaining that Heifer International offers the one best solution to poverty as all the other quotes confirm.

Another possible criticism is that Heifer’s solution is linked to Christian charity, which Heifer materials address through dissoi logoi. Heifer materials deflect criticism that they might be a Christian-only based charity by tempering religious discourse. For instance, they use the more liberal and secular expression of “holiday” as opposed to a more specific religious term (e.g., Christmas, Hanukkah) for the catalog title. In addition, they play down the serious side of religion. For example, in the single mention of Christmas in the catalog they are playfully attaching it to an ad for “Christmas chicks” not the birth of Christ. The catalog is designed to gently refocus attention on charity and what some might call the true meaning of the holidays without being preachy.

Yet, as mentioned before, this language simultaneously critiques the commercialization of religious holidays. This places the organization in a quandary as it could be criticized as well for selling religion within the pages of the catalog. But once again the criticism is deflected through moderate counterdiscourse. The holiday catalog does contain a section that promotes Christian learning through specific products. Most notably, “Sunday school lessons and faith-based materials . . . that teach children about the solutions to hunger and poverty” can be ordered free of charge via a 1-800 number (2011 catalog, p. 10). Although the materials are ironically meant to sell religion they are free, thus deflecting criticism grounded in the ironic. No mention is made of missionary work among the poor, thus, thwarting imperialist criticism.

However, in another section of the catalog, religion surfaces by way of the story of Noah’s ark. Specifically, animal gifts can be given “Two by Two” and by ordering the “Gift Ark” you can be an “Ark Angel!” (2010 catalog, pp. 24-25). The “Ark” quotes are situated above and below a color illustration of an ark with a dove flying toward it, olive branch in beak. The gift ark is priced at US$5,000.00. Thus, after critiquing capitalism for commercializing the holidays (e.g., Christmas), Heifer subtly commercializes religion by exploiting it to garner money, promoting products aimed at children meant to promote “faith-based materials” and charitable giving linked to religious stories. Again, these persuasive techniques are mild forms of dissoi logoi/kairos.

Art of Illusion

The art of illusion refers to the tricks or deceptions used within promotional materials to steer the readers’ attention in one direction and away from another. From Burke (1935) to Berger (1972) scholars have consistently argued that rhetoric, whether visual or textual, guides one to see the world in particular ways. The strategy to use happy, healthy images of people in sylvan settings hides difficult or dirty circumstances, pasteurizing the portrayal of the poor.

An illusion exists about the state of the economically disenfranchised, including who they are and how they live. But a second type of illusion connects donors, who may be a world away, to these images, if not these people.

One of the most persuasive means used to draw in donations is creating a perception of a personal connection for the donor to make donors feel as if they make a difference. Having an impact is important to donors (Saxton & Zhuang, 2013). Clair and Anderson (2012) show Kiva’s use of the personal-connection-form of advertising in which donors are led to believe that they may pick the person to whom they wish to have their loan/donation sent, backfired when it was revealed that no such practice was taking place; instead, Kiva bundles the money and supplies it to the Grameen Bank., The revelation triggered “over 10,000 hits and thousands of twitter postings” from disgruntled donors (Strom, 2009, n.p.). Heifer relies on the same technique; they even encourage donors to sit down with their children and pick out the “gift” together. The term gift conjures images of friendship and closeness. Donors are led to believe that they are giving an individual gift (e.g., a chicken) to a specific person or family (e.g., a little girl and her siblings in Haiti). The sense of connection seems to be a reality and is very persuasive even as it presents a fiction, an illusion (Baudrillard, 1983). The gift is not actually materialized in the form illustrated by the promotional materials and the donor is not connected to the “recipient” in any but the most distant of relationships. However, unlike Kiva, Heifer at least provides a disclaimer (albeit in smaller print) that explains that they combine the money and use it in a “unique community development model” (2010 catalog, p. 25). They further explain that donations are never tracked from giver to recipient as this would take away from the “limited resources” that Heifer has at its disposal. The advertising practice of promising a personal connection demonstrates the art of illusion; the disclaimer that Heifer bundles the donated money side-steps criticism before it can be brought against Heifer which demonstrates rhetorical dissoi logoi/kairos, but the illusion is so overpowering, the print so fine, that the average reader/donor is unlikely to catch the disclaimer. Thus, the art of illusion is the stronger strategy in this case.

The embedded claim that Heifer has “limited resources” is also worthy of further scrutiny. One expects nonprofits to have limited resources as they are charities and depend on the generosity of the donors, which adds to their legitimacy; but, this too may be an illusion. The illusion of limited resources is important for a nonprofit’s legitimacy. As Saxton and Zhuang (2013) pointed out, people measure the legitimacy of the nonprofit by ratio of proceeds disbursed to the money spent on overhead.

Heifer International put 73% of its monetary contributions toward programs for those in need, while its CEO, received US$287,298.00 in salary in 2010 (Better Business Bureau, 2012-2014). This salary may be considered excessive (e.g., the CEO of Doctors without Borders is paid approximately US$128,325.00 and the CEO of Invisible Children receives US$88,241.00). Some states are considering placing a cap on nonprofit CEOs’ salaries (Livio, 2010) as a large part of their money comes from state and federal grants (i.e., money raised through taxes; Lipsky & Smith, 1989). Salary information is available for public knowledge and may have in some way contributed to the decision to temporarily replace Pierre Ferrari with Charles Stewart (Ferrari was paid US$288,912.00 in 2008; Stewart was paid US$180,558.00 in Ferrari’s absence). In 2011, Pierre Ferrari returned as CEO of Heifer International with the markedly reduced salary of US$43, 612.00 (Charity Navigator, 2012). These salaries are public knowledge but are not part of the promotional materials where an illusion of charity (and an illusion of a separation from capitalism) must be maintained. Public attention to Ferrari’s, and other CEO’s, high salary may have placed Heifer in a precarious position between capitalism’s demand for high salaries for executives and a nonprofit charity’s altruistic mission to serve those who are less fortunate. The high executive salary threatens the nonprofit’s charitable reputation. Yet, some have argued that high salaries are required to keep talented CEO’s from leaving nonprofits and returning to the private sector. A paradox exists.

In addition as mentioned earlier, having limited resources contributes to a legitimate image for a nonprofit, but Heifer’s resources have been called into question. The organization has been criticized for having US$17 million in undistributed funds (Messina, 2009) and for the amount of money spent on advertising. And yet, they have been praised for their award-winning promotional materials. Nonprofit organizations walk a fine line between devoting funds toward ways of gaining funds and devoting funds to the needy.

Heifer International’s high CEO salaries, excessive advertising budget, millions in undistributed funds and ecologically questionable programs speak of a complex relationship between the capitalist practices and the charitable organization’s intentions. Furthermore, the illusion that individual donors may select the gift and select the recipient calls into question the ethics of the organization or at the very least the advertising practices (albeit a disclaimer has been added). The above strategies—perspective by incongruity, dissoi logoi/kairos, and the art of illusion—call into question economic intentions and lead us to ask where Heifer International should be placed in the capitalist landscape.

On the Cusp of Capitalism

The acceptance of nonprofit organizations (religious and secular) to care for the poor has a long and complicated history attached to socioeconomic, religious, and political ideologies. The entanglement of the economic infrastructure and the cultural practices that support it are not easily parsed out (Weisbrod, 1988). However, Taylor and Doerfel’s (2011) study of nonprofit organizations in Eastern European bloc countries (recently released from communist control) provided an excellent reminder of the taken-for-granted role that charitable organizations play in a capitalist society. The once State controlled Eastern Bloc faced the challenge of having to create nonprofit organizations where none had existed earlier to replace services provided by the communist government. These nonprofits could not simply compete with each other for charitable dollars; they needed partial collaboration. Taylor and Doerfel (2011) asserted that it is the coordination and competition among humanitarian nonprofit organizations that “create the social capital necessary to the development and maintenance of civil society” (p. 313).

But not everyone agrees. Civil society, as Dutta-Bergman (2005) pointed out, is defined by “Eurocentric” standards that justify “imperialist” expansion into other countries (p. 268). Even when considering the capitalist/nonprofit relationship within the United States, studies suggest competing ideologies exist concerning the role of government in nonprofit organizing (Lipsky & Smith, 1989).

The government relies on nonprofits to care for the economic underclass and nonprofits have become dependent on the government for much of their income (in some cases as much as 56%, see Lipsky & Smith, 1989). As Weisbrod (1988) pointed out, the nonprofit sector exists in a state of interdependency and complexity with the government and the private sector with some encouraging this relationship and others taking a stand against it. We raise this issue not to determine which ideology is correct, but rather to point out the often taken-for-granted acceptance and place of NGOs and nonprofit organizations in a capitalist society. That is, they necessarily prop up the weak rafters in a capitalist structure without most donors realizing this implication.

Nonprofit organizations care for the poor as they care for capitalism. This position is likely overlooked in general, but at times surfaces in the most ironic of ways. The recent move toward portraying the poor as entrepreneurs-in-the-making might be one of the most obvious means of suggesting that it is the role of nonprofits to support a capitalist system. On the other hand, Heifer International’s promotional materials display a reluctance to engage such a blatantly capitalist discourse. The poor are not portrayed as entrepreneurs per se and the celebrity endorsements are drawn from conservatives to liberals in an attempt to avoid being judged on political ideology. They use moderation in discourse to deflect arguments before they can arise and they use the art of illusion to maintain a portrayal of the poor in such a way that fits their solution and their solution is portrayed in such a way as to anchor their organizational position at the edges of capitalism. Heifer International tempers its ideological stance (in religious, economic, and political position) through dissoi logoi/kairos, ironic discourse (perspectives of incongruity), and through the art of illusion. Heifer International challenges capitalism and simultaneously supports it. They position themselves on the cusp of capitalism in the blind spot where their taken-for-granted existence in the capitalist system is difficult to see, where the visible and invisible are forever exchanging positions.

Conclusion

Using textual and visual means, Heifer International, portrays the poor as healthy and happy, ethnically diverse, ranging in age from babies to the elderly, living in the pastoral present that has been made better by the nonprofit’s gift. The use of the entrepreneurial discourse is apparent but moderate. Nevertheless, the recipient is viewed as enterprising and capable of boot-strapping himself or herself to success and happiness via a small agricultural gift. In addition to the use of enterprising discourse, perspective by incongruity, dissoi logoi/kairos, and the art of illusion are invoked to persuade donors to give. These strategies should not be taken as mutually exclusive or exhaustive. They likely overlap and there could be others around the marketing corner.

Perspective by incongruity, certainly the most ironic and humorous strategy, is found in Heifer’s co-optation of the capitalist commercialization of the religious holidays. Here the nonprofit playfully and satirically draws from capitalism’s own discursive strategy—the holiday gift catalog—to critique capitalism.

The use of dissoi logoi/kairos begins with the endorsements by Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, religious and secular activists, whose words appear side-by-side. This strategy manages the political criticism the organization might receive through balance and moderation. Moderation is extended to its religious discourse, never being heavy handed with its Christian doctrine within the holiday catalog, but including it as a possibility. Additional dissoi logoi/kairos is found in the portrayal of the solution to poverty that Heifer proposes as the ultimate solution, whereas the quote from Dr. Jane Goodall reminds the reader that Heifer is just one part of the solution, thus challenging Heifer’s own portrayal of the solution.

A third strategy invoked in the materials is the art of illusion. The illusion of happy, healthy people may or may not be a deception, but it likely pasteurizes the portrayals and hides the practice of dirty work, resulting in what might be “charitable” portrayals, providing pictures of people at their best. The image of the poor as “enterprising” also hides the infirmed, the starving, and others who are incapable of entrepreneurship, leaving the donors with the illusion that those in need are capable and the solution is simple. The notion that the solution is all-encompassing is moderated through dissoi logoi, but the illusion remains that poverty is easily corrected through Heifer International’s plan.

Goodall’s quote reminded us that much is absent from the overall portrayal of poverty and its eradication according to the Heifer International materials. The reader is unaware of conservation conditions, including the history and politics of the situation, while Heifer International has been criticized for possibly contributing to ecological problems. As for medical help, there are no images of the sick and dying, whether of AIDS or starvation. There are stories of health improvement due to the addition of growing more nutritional food and having milk and yogurt as the result of the animals, but no mention is made of the lack of refrigeration in most underdeveloped countries, while Heifer has been criticized for relying so heavily on milk products in regions where lactose intolerance is high (Messina, 2009). As for doctors, Heifer does mention the little girl who would like to be a doctor when she grows up and Heifer plans to help her attain an education, but the little girl’s dream and the access to doctors and medical care are clearly not the focus of Heifer International. With respect to “controlled tourism” the reader has no idea of the “cost” to the local community when high-rise hotels are built on beaches, displacing families and fishing, and leaving unwanted and sometimes toxic materials behind, although the catalog covers do promote ecological practices as a stated mission of the organization. The catalog purports that it uses less paper, recycled paper, and vegetable inks in an attempt to be ecologically friendly. This may be considered a dissoi logoi as well that creates an illusion of ecological responsibility.

The art of illusion became most apparent in the practice of presenting the donors as having a personal connection to the gift and in turn to the recipients of the gift, even though no such connection exists. Although these are not new, Internet exposure of such practices reaches the public today with intensity, in terms of the numbers of people reached and the speed at which messages spread. Recall that more than 10,000 individuals responded to the “outing” of Kiva’s illusory practices. Perhaps people are becoming more aware as a result. But if not, does exposing the illusion cause emotional distress for donors? Will this intensify when children are involved (as donors or recipients) or will it be forgiven as having been a valuable way to encourage giving? And are these exposures led by concerned citizens or other nonprofits and NGOs competing for the same donors and dollars? These are questions for future study.

In addition, an illusion of neutrality was achieved through a combination of strategies. Heifer International achieved this illusion of neutrality through perspectives by incongruity, through dissoi logoi/kairos, and through the art of illusion. Projecting an illusion of neutrality by balancing ideologies may hide the role of nonprofit organizations in a capitalist landscape; the present findings indicate that nonprofits hold anything but innocent positions in capitalism. First, and foremost, they secure the base of capitalism by providing funding to the poor who would otherwise fall through the cracks of the capitalist structure. These poor are characterized by specific attributes, or metonymy, suggesting that some poor are more worthy than others. Second, the nonprofits receive large portions of their funding from private enterprise and/or from the government agencies, contributing to an illusion that capitalism can sustain an expansive middle class. Capitalism cannot sustain itself without nonprofits to support the economically disenfranchised. Future studies should address whether donors realize that nonprofits receive funding from state and federal resources, or whether they see themselves as the primary donors and explore how donors feel about capping nonprofit CEO’s salaries and whether they recognize the role of nonprofit organizations in the capitalist landscape. That is, future studies might undertake explorations not only of portrayals of the poor and of poverty, but of donors’ perceptions of nonprofit organizations as well.

Whether nonprofit organizations promote a neo-capitalist agenda or not, they should adhere to ethical standards. Transparency has been one avenue to hold profit and nonprofit organizations accountable. For instance, when the public can see what a nonprofit organization is paying its staff or CEOs, the public has a chance to voice concerns. Transparency may play another and slightly different strategic role if handled deftly. For instance, when Heifer International replaced their CEO, whose salary may have seemed exorbitant to some and under whose watch funds were distributed at a lower rate than expected, no details to the public were forthcoming. Instead the details were quietly sequestered from public view and the public was left to guess what the CEO had done wrong. By switching the angle of the lens from the CEO’s actions to the board of director’s actions and spotlighting their decisions, transparency might have given the organization a new and positive public relations image. The board of directors could have been credited with keeping a careful eye on the situation (if that was the case), taking appropriate measures by disciplining the CEO and credited as being kind and forgiving as they allowed the aforementioned CEO to return to his position, giving him a second chance.

The same transparency is called for concerning the promotional materials, but likely would reduce contributions if donors understood that they are not picking out specific animals for specific people. It would seem that the personal connection form of advertising is persuasive. Past tactics (for religious organizations, for example) have incorporated negative tactics such as guilt; whereas, the present system employed by Heifer International is built on a feel good message that incorporates the pathos associated with needy (and in this case smiling) children. This leaves us with the question: Is there a way to be honest, transparent, and equally persuasive? The top revenue receiving nonprofit organization in the United States is the YMCA (Top Nonprofits, 2012) and their most recent campaign was a huge success relying on the “mystery donor” approach. A masked donor offers to match dollar-for-dollar up to a specific amount that others give. It is made clear that the matching donor will be revealed once the specified amount is received (Kandiyohi Co., Minn. YMCA, 2013). This adds a bit of playful mystery without any deception. Of course, readers should be aware that donations are only one means to achieving revenue. The YMCA is also a United Way recipient and has high credibility allowing for the development of additional revenue sources (diversification is important to achieving revenue; Top Nonprofits, 2012). It should be noted that Heifer International is also a well-diversified organization, if not a United Way recipient. Although Heifer International’s campaign is very creative, it does tempt fate with its less-than-honest approach.

Presently the transparency of Heifer International promotional materials is restricted to small print disclaimers explaining that funds are bundled, that funds are not tracked, and that the funds are limited, all meant to be partially transparent so that the organization will not be criticized. It is quite possible that this nonprofit organization and others like it might make headway by embracing full transparency and creativity. We are not saying this will work for all nonprofit organizations by any means, but it is worth the effort.

Promotional materials have the power to portray and position the poor, to persuade donors, and to characterize the organization. In this case, a close reading of the texts guided by a hermeneutics of suspicion showed that the rhetorical materials portrayed those in need as existing on the cusp of capitalism. Likewise, the nonprofit organization positioned itself on the cusp of capitalism, creating an illusion that it exists outside the capitalist venue, when it appears, after close analysis, that it is a capitalist player after all.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the Management Communication Quarterly reviewers and the Associate Editor, Sarah Tracy, for their insightful comments and careful editing.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Robin Patric Clair (PhD, Kent State University) is a full professor in the Brian Lamb School of Communication at the Purdue University, United States. Prof. Clair’s research interests include organizational communication, ethnography, rhetoric, and diversity issues.

Lindsey B. Anderson is a doctoral candidate in the Brian Lamb School of Communication at the Purdue University, USA. Her main research interests include organizational communication, emotional labor, and aging in the workplace.

References

Armendariz

Morduch

(2010). The economics of microfinance (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Asen

(2002). Visions of poverty: Welfare policy and political imagination. East Lansing, MI: Michigan University Press.

Ashforth

Kreiner

(1999). How can you do it?: Dirty work and the challenge of constructing a positive identity. Academy of Management Review, 24, 413-434. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/259134

Barker

J. R.

(1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Quarterly, 38, 408-437. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2393374

Baudrillard

(1983). Simulations ( Foss

Patton

Beitchman

, Trans.). NT: Semiotexte.

Bentley

(2012, June 23). Microloans: Pulling people out of poverty. CBS Nightly News. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7412718n&;utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BuzzGames_Gamecore+(TheShowbuzz%3A+Games+GameCore)

Berger

(1972). Ways of seeing. London, England: Penguin Books.

Berkelaar

B. L.

Buzzanell

P. M.

Kisselburgh

L. G.

Tan

Shen

(2012). First, it’s dirty. Second, it’s dangerous. Third, it’s insulting: Urban Chinese children talk about dirty work. Communication Monographs, 79, 93-114. Retrieved from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/03637751.2011.646490

Better Business Bureau. (2012). – “BBB Wise Giving” Charity Review: Heifer Project International (Issued 2012–Expires 2014). Retrieved from http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/other/heifer-project-international-in-little-rock-ar-569/all

10.

Bobzien

(2008). Ancient logic. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy ( Zalta

E. N.

Ed., Fall ed.). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=logic-ancient

11.

Burke

(1935). Permanence and change: An anatomy of purpose (3rd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

12.

Burke

(1969). A rhetoric of motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. (Original work published in 1937)

13.

Charity Navigator. (2012). Heifer project international. Retrieved from http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&;orgid=3809

14.

Clair

R. P.

(1996). The political nature of the colloquialism, “a real job”: Implications for organizational socialization. Communication Monographs, 63, 249-267.

15.

Clair

R. P.

Anderson

(2012, November). Organizational communication and the portrayals of poverty: From discursive elements to metonymic hegemonic definitions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Orlando, Florida.

16.

Clair

R. P. B.

Green

R. J.

Palmer

Swope

Russell

Wilhoit

(2011, November). Religion exemplified in the life of “Poor Sarah”: The case for example as occlusion. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.

17.

Clair

R. P.

(2013, June). Toward a theory of metonymy with implications for “the poor.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Philosophy Division, International Communication Association. London, England.

18.

Clair

R. P.

McConnell

Bell

Hackbarth

Mathes

(2008). Why work: The perceptions of a “Real Job” and rhetoric of work through the ages. West Lafayette. IN: Purdue University Press.

19.

Clifford

(1986). Introduction: Partial truths. In Clifford

Marcus

G. E.

(Eds.), Writing culture: Poetics and politics of ethnography (pp. 1-26). Berkeley: University of California Press.

20.

Dempsey

S. E.

(2009). NGOs, communicative labor, and the work of grassroots representation. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 6, 328-345. doi:10.1080/14791420903348625.

21.

Drew

S. K.

Mills

Gassaway

(Eds.). (2007). Dirty work: The social construction of taint. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.

22.

Dutta-Bergman

(2005). Civil society and public relations: Not so civil after all. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17, 267-289. doi:10.1207/s1532754xipr1703_3

23.

Finnegan

C. A.

(2003). Picturing poverty. Print culture and FSA photographs. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books.

24.

Harter

L. M.

Edwards

McClanahan

Hopson

M. C.

Carson-Stern

(2004). Organizing for survival and social change: The case of StreetWise. Communication Studies, 55, 407-424. Retrieved from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/10510970409388627.

25.

Heifer International. (n.d.). Awards and acknowledgements. Retrieved from http://www.heifer.org/ourwork/success/awards

26.

Heifer International. (n.d.). History. Retrieved from http://www.heifer.org/ourwork/our-history

27.

Herrick

J. A.

(2013). The history and theory of rhetoric (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

28.

Holmer Nadesan

(2010). Enterprising narratives and the global financialization of microlending. Women & Language, 33, 9-30.

29.

Holmer Nadesan

Trethewey

(2000). Performing the enterprising subject: Gendered strategies for success (?). Text and Performance Quarterly, 20, 223-250. doi:10.1080/10462930009366299.

30.

Hughes

(1951). Work and the self. In Rohrer

Sherif

(Eds.), Social psychology at the crossroads (pp. 313-323). New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.

31.

Johnson-Sheehan

R. D.

(1998). Sophistic rhetoric. In Mary Kennedy

(Eds.), Theorizing composition, A critical sourcebook of theory and scholarship in contemporary composition studies (pp. 300-304). Westport, CT: Greenwood. Retrieved from http://grammar.about.com/od/d/g/Dissoi-Logoi.htm

32.

Kandiyohi Co., Minn., YMCA gets dollar-for-dollar pledge from mystery donor. (2013, April 18). West Central Tribune. Willmar, MN: Retrieved from http://www.wctrib.com/content/kandiyohi-co-minn-ymca-campaign-gets-dollar-dollar-pledge-mystery-donor

33.

Lipsky

Smith

(1989). Nonprofit organizations, government, and the welfare state. Political Science Quarterly, 104, 625-648. Retrieved form http://www.jstor.org/stable/2151102

34.

Livestock gift charities do not help poor nations, says global critics. (2007, January/February). Animal People. Retrieved from http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/07/1/livestockgiftcharities1_07.html

35.

Livio

S. K.

(2010, April 25). N.J. Gov. Chris Christie aims to cap salaries of nonprofit group executives to $141K. NJ.Com Retrieved from http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/04/nj_gov_chris_christie_aims_to.html

36.

Loehwing

(2010). Homelessness as the unforgiving minute of the present: The rhetorical tenses of democratic citizenship. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 96, 380-403. doi:10.1080/00335630.2010.521171

37.

Lucas

(2011). Blue-collar discourses of workplace dignity: Using outgroup comparisons to construct positive identities. Management Communication Quarterly, 25, 353-374. doi:10.1177/0893318910386445

38.

Messina

(2009). Donations to Heifer International may do more harm than good. Retrieved from http://www.examiner.com/article/donations-to-heifer-international-may-do-more-harm-than-good

39.

Morduch

(1999). The microfinance promise. Journal of Economic Literature, 37, 1569-1614. doi:10.1257/jel.37.4.1569

40.

Morduch

(2000). The microfinance schism. World Development, 28, 617-629. Retrieved from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/S0305-750X(99)00151-5

41.

Nix

Webb

(n.d.). Deforestation. Retrieved from http://www.calacirya.org/guatemala_deforestation.htm

42.

Novak

D. R.

Harter

L. M.

(2008). “Flipping the scripts” of poverty and panhandling: Organizing democracy by creating connections. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36, 391-414. Retrieved from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/00909880802104890

43.

Papa

M. J.

Auwal

M. A.

Singhal

(1997). Organizing for social change within concertive control systems: Member identification, empowerment, and the masking of discipline. Communication Monographs, 64, 219-249. doi:10.1080/03637759709376418

44.

Poulakos

(1999). Classical rhetorical theory. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

45.

Ricoeur

(1970). Freud and philosophy: An essay on interpretation ( Savage

, Trans.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

46.

Rosaldo

(1986). From the door of his tent: The fieldworker and the inquisitor. In Clifford

Marcus

G. E.

(Eds.), Writing culture, poetics and politics of ethnography (pp. 77-97). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

47.

Saxton

G. D.

Zhuang

(2013). The game-theoretic model of disclosure-donation interactions in the market for charitable contributions. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 41, 40-63. doi:10.1080/00909882.2012.744076

48.

Schantz

M. S.

(1997). Religious tracts, evangelical reform, and the market revolution in antebellum America. Journal of the Early Republic, 17, 425-466.

49.

Scott

J. A.

(2007). Our callings, our selves: Repositioning religious and entrepreneurial discourses in career theory and practice. Communication Studies, 58, 261-279. doi:10.1080/10510970701518363

50.

Smith

(1937/1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. New York: Random House.

51.

Strom

(2009, November 8). Confusion on where Money Lent via Kiva Goes. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/business/global/09kiva.html

52.

Taylor

Doerfel

M. L.

(2011). Evolving network roles in international aid efforts: Evidence from Croatia’s postwar transition. Voluntus: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22, 311-334. doi:10.1007/s1126-010-9155-3

53.

Top Nonprofits: YMCA ranks first in ‘The Nonprofits Times’ Top 100. (2012). Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/new-study-nonprofit-times-top-100_n_2083998.html#slide=1726078

54.

Tracy

S. J.

(2003). Watching the watchers: Making sense of emotional construction behind bars. In Clair

R. P.

(Ed.), Expressions of ethnography: Novel approaches to qualitative methods (pp. 159-174). Albany: State University of New York Press.

55.

Tracy

S. J.

(2004). The construction of correctional officers: Layers of emotionality behind bars. Qualitative Inquiry, 10, 509-533. doi:10.1177/1077800403259716

56.

Tracy

S. J.

Lutgen-Sandvik

Alberts

J. K.

(2006). Nightmares, demons, and slaves: Exploring the painful metaphors of workplace bullying. Management Communication Quarterly, 20, 148-185. doi:10.1177/0893318906291980

57.

Tracy

S. J.

Scott

(2006). Sexuality, masculinity, and taint management among firefighters and correctional officers: Getting down and dirty with “America’s heroes” and the “scum of law enforcement.” Management Communication Quarterly, 20, 6-38. doi:10.1177/0893318906287898

58.

Tracy

S. J.

Trethewey

(2005). Fracturing the real-self↔fake-self dichotomy: Moving toward “crystallized” organizational discourses and identities. Communication Theory, 15, 168-195. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2005.tb00331.x

59.

Upchurch

(2012, March 7). Heifer’s Addy Awards. Retrieved from http://insidehotspringsvillage.blogspot.com/2012/03/heifers-addy-awards.html

60.

Weisbrod

B. A.

(1988). The nonprofit economy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

61.

A Well-Fed World. (n.d.). The dark side of animal “gifts.” Retrieved from http://awellfedworld.org/heifer

62.

Weber

(1992/1904–05). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. (Trans. Parsons

Talcott

) London: Routledge.

63.

West

N. M.

(2000). Kodak and the lens of nostalgia. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.