The Strange Psychology of Bourgeois-Priced Benefits for Third World Causes

I almost went to a benefit today, for a group working for social justice in Nepal.  It wasn’t the cause that I was going for (though it seems like a good one) as much as the performers and DJs involved…  This benefit featured some people who were pretty prominent in the  Asian Underground music of the past decade.  One, most notably, was a founder of Asian Dub  Foundation - who probably aren’t one of my absolute favorites, but I still respect them a lot for their historic influence on the meeting between Asian beats and hip-hop.  In any event, it would have been a decent show to go to, if it were at a better price.

But the show cost $35, at the minimum, with some far more outrageously priced tickets for those who wanted to become higher-level contributors (and get better seats, I guess).  While that’s not so outrageous by theater-price standards, I thought it was a little expensive for this kind of music, especially since it was being put on in an old church that I knew best as a host for anarchist meetings and bookfairs.  To me, there is something a bit incongruous about leftists and radical hip-hop performers having a benefit to help people in an impoverished Third-World country and charging a price that few poor or working class people in this country would feel comfortable paying.

I suppose, though, that the psychology behind this kind of benefit is pretty well established here.  The focus is not class solidarity or radical politics, but the funding of a liberal NGO-type organization.  There is a kind of liberal-altruistic politics behind these organizations and their benefits that is foreign to me, although it is no doubt a more prevailing and established kind of politics than the kind that motivates the benefits and events that I’m used to going to.

To me, punk rock events are a pretty old thing too at this point, but they’re still newer than the liberal charity business.  And I got very used to the principle guiding radical punk bands that the price should be kept low to make the events affordable for other people in the political punk scene - and maybe also to stick closer to the proletarian principles that they espouse.  A similar thing might be said for many techno/electronica events and parties that have a radical or anti-establishment orientation, if not explicit politics.  And hip-hop, of course (though I’ve seen some ”radical” hip-hop acts charge high enough prices once they became popular).  There are also other acts that will play plenty of free festivals and then will play a moderately priced club (I’m thinking in particular of you-know-who), though I’m not sure how much control they have over the pricing of their events vs. what is determined by their promoters and record companies.  But, still, I like to think that they’re making some effort to keep their shows affordable, especially if they are espousing some anti-capitalist or anti-establishment ideas.

Some people will say, well, yes, but a benefit should be able to charge more because it’s for a good cause and so people should be willing to pay more.  Somehow, I think that belongs in the same category as the people who say that we should all be willing to work for lower wages if it’s for a good cause, hence the justification for dismal wages paid by many nonprofit groups.  However, if you put the two things together, it becomes puzzling to guess how people who work for nonprofit wages will be able to afford to pay for nonprofit concerts - unless it’s assumed that they’ll be able to get free tickets from their employers and contacts or that they’re all young people in affluent families who can still count on a lot of supplemental money flowing from Mom and Dad.

But I suppose that the difference between the traditional nonprofit benefit and the radical one that keeps its prices low is connected to the difference between altruism/charity and solidarity.  The traditional liberal organizations, NGOs and the like, use the word “solidarity” a little, but I think that their psychology is more that of a charity being run by people who consider themselves to be well off, doing something for people who are less fortunate.  Solidarity is more a matter of actually feeling united with other people through a shared form of economic or social oppression.  And, while it is true that most poor people in this country might be better off in terms of basic material circumstances than the vast majority of poor people in the Third World, there is still a shared feeling of being at the bottom of the economic heap, always struggling to meet the material demands of the surrounding society.  

To me, a benefit run by a group that is in true solidarity with poor or struggling people - even if they are in the Third World - would be conscious about making sure that the event is accessable to poor and struggling people right in their own back yard.

If it seems financially impractical to keep all the prices low, there is always the “suggested donation/pay what you can” or sliding scale approach.  That might not bring as much money as setting a standard high price or expecting everyone to pay such a price, but it seems like the most principled approach, for people who are promoting radical or progressive causes.

All that having been said, I should add that the event I have in mind is far from the worst example.  Ticket prices for benefits probably are much higher in other situations.  But the prices were high enough, especially considering the particular acts and venue, to get me thinking about all of this.