Hey there! Thanks for checking out my blog. If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed to receive updates. Thanks for visiting!

There is a lot of talk of personal branding these days: is it good or bad? How can you build a network of people who respect your personal brand? How can you join a group of people with the same interests to help you make professional connections?

But while we are busy trying to carve an online space for ourselves and create a community of supporters who rally around our “brand”, we forget that the online space we inhabit is also continuously is defining us - and indeed, changing us in ways simultaneously subtle and not-so-subtle.

For instance, when I first got into social media - Twitter, blogging and the like - I was interested, yes, in human rights issues. But the interest was not as full blown of a passion as it is now. Why the change? I attribute much of it to the network I tapped into, which in turn started shaping me.

I began following more and more human rights activists, non-profit leaders, social entrepreneurs, and others in the social space. As I began following people incredibly passionate about bettering the world, it made me a better person. I tapped into these networks, engaged in conversations, and sat back and listened to some of the smartest people in the world debate issues in the human rights, social change, and development arena. And by becoming part of the conversation, I became more and more passionate about these issues myself.

Social media, the blogosphere, and Twitter helped me find my singular passion. Before Twitter, there were always many ideas and many interests swirling around in my head. But after I began actively engaging on Twitter, I learned more fundamentally, who I was. By choosing who to “follow” and dedicate my brain space to — and by choosing who to “unfollow” and ignore — I realized what I personally cared about most. What issues, careers, and industries resonated with me the most.

Social media made me a better person. By surrounding myself by people who genuinely cared, and not only that, cared in an intelligent manner (and yes, there is a distinction) — I began caring more. And more intelligently.

What’s true in real life is also true on the web. Surround yourself with good, smart people, and you will become more like them. Your friends can exert a positive influence on you and make you a better person, or you can fall into bad company and go downhill.

This may sound overdramatic to you, but I swear it’s not. Some people are born knowing what they want to do: be a doctor, a lawyer, an accountant even. They are lucky. I’ve never been that way. I have always had too many interests to narrow down to a single career that would define who I was for the rest of my life (a scary thought, right?). My passions didn’t always fit into the traditional career path. Social media helped me jump into the conversation and find what I really wanted. By finding many more outside my small real-life social circle doing exactly what I loved for a living, I felt my career interests to be validated. I found the courage to follow my heart, knowing that many others out there were also doing so, and sometimes breaking free of societal constraints in the process.

You don’t just create an online network that mirrors your own traits — your online network defines you, and even has the power to change you fundamentally.

Are you engaging with people who make you stronger, more brave, more caring, more intelligent, more informed?

Do you push yourself to join networks that challenge you to be better and to achieve your dreams?

Stop tweeting about what you had for breakfast, or your horrible job. Start conversations with those who intimidate you, with those who you breathlessly admire. Be bold. And maybe, just maybe, you’ll get there too.

How does your online community define and shape who you are?

The earthquake that has just struck Haiti is a natural disaster of massive proportions, and it’s very difficult for us to wrap our heads around it. The current estimated death toll is 30,000 to 100,000 - which is a huge number. According to Tales From the Hood

And even at the low end of that estimate, it is still a big number. Typhoon’s Morakot, Ketsana and Parma, plus a tsunami in the Samoa Island Group, plus both of last Fall’s earthquakes in Indonesia, combined did not reach a death toll of 30,000.

According to MSF, there are no working hospitals in the country; the National Palace and other major government buildings have collapsed; many of the U.N. offices have been damaged and U.N. officials killed. My prayers go out to all those affected by this disaster. I cannot even really fathom the magnitude of pain these people must be going through.

What has impressed me is the extent this disaster has reverberated through social media channels. Through Twitter and blogging, people shared their sentiments about the disaster. Citizen journalism was at its best, with Haitians reaching out to provide news updates via Twitter despite chaos, confusion and damage to regular communication channels. People across the globe have, amazingly, been able to follow the developments practically in real-time. Earlier today Daniel Morel created a Twitter account, @photomorel, and posted a series of shocking high-quality photos depicting what exactly was happening in Haiti. @marvinady has also posted photos of the devastation; these were some of the first photos of the devastation. Hashtags #Haiti and #Haitihelp are being used to keep tabs on Haiti updates.

Social networking sites have provided something incredibly important that the New York Times or BBC simply cannot provide: a human connection. By following someone on Twitter and seeing their pictures, we feel closely connected to them. Social media, by connecting people, has allowed for an outpouring of empathy that simply isn’t possible through the mainstream media. We’re getting information as it happens from those suffering or witnessing this destruction. It’s not some abstract natural disaster - it’s happening to real people. People we can identify and follow on Twitter and via blogging. This intensely human connection is social media’s most powerful tool.

Social networks have also proved invaluable in gathering much-needed donations for relief efforts. Wyclef Jean took Twitter by storm and mobilized followers to donate to his Yele Haiti Foundation even before most NGOs started their relief efforts. Today afternoon, Yele was the #1 trending topic on Twitter, followed closely by the Red Cross at #2. Non-profits have creatively utilized social networks to make donating as easy as possible. The Red Cross and the IRC have both created ways for supporters to quickly donate $5 or $10 by texting to a certain number; these messages have been Retweeted, spreading like wildfire through the social web. These text message campaigns have been very successful, raising millions in the past couple of days (some are a scam, but these two are not — so do make sure you check out who you’re texting to).

This was truly a social media response, and I’m proud to see my fellow citizens working together to disseminate important news and ramp up donations. This is social media at it’s best: people collaborating and reaching out to do something good.

Immediate disaster relief is vital, but we can’t forget that the hardest work is yet to come. This earthquake will have a devastating longer-term effect on Haiti. Already a poor country, Haiti will suffer immensely from the aftermath: failed and broken infrastructure. It will be difficult to pick up the pieces and rebuild the country again. While I’m glad to see the impact of social media, I only hope the momentum lasts enough to provide continued support for future rebuilding efforts. So keep Haiti in mind even after a few weeks when the situation may not be all over your Twitter of Facebook feeds!

Here’s a quick roundup of some excellent posts to keep up with news on Haiti/figure out where to donate:

• Change.org War & Peace: Haiti Rescuers are Racing Against Time
• UN Dispatch: Haiti’s Coming Public Health Challenges &  Haiti Earthquake: The Day After Part II
• Helpful tips on what to do about Haiti and who to donate to, from an experienced aid worker
• Some background thoughts from Marginal Revolution: Why is Haiti so Poor?
• Aidwatch has a nice post on navigating the complex terrain of disaster relief
• Good Intentions are Not Enough: good post on wisely choosing NGOs to donate to
• Make sure you check out Haiti.Ushahidi.com for crowd-sourcing disaster map, news, info

My personal recommendation for donations is Partners in Health:

Thanks to Running Chicken, I found an excellent new article by Hunjoon Kim and Kathryn Sikkink: Explaining the Deterrence Effect of Human Rights Prosecutions for Transitional Countries. The article basically concludes that:

We find that human rights prosecutions after transition lead to improvements in human rights protection, and that human rights prosecutions have a deterrence impact beyond the confines of the single country. We also explore the mechanisms through which prosecutions lead to improvements in human rights. We argue that impact of prosecutions is the result of both normative pressures and material punishment and provide support for this argument with a comparison of the impact of prosecutions and truth commissions, which do not involve material punishment.

If the article’s findings are correct and the statistical methodology is sound, then this is a great finding and can really help international justice move forward more confidently in the future. I am especially impressed by the finding that the normative impact of prosecutions has actually resulted in deterrence, since many have argued that international justice has not been communicated well on the ground, thus resulting in little impact on deterrence. More quantitative studies should be done on this particular question to further confirm these conclusions.

One of the questions that I had when I first read this was whether there would be a difference between post-conflict transitional justice and justice during conflict - such as the intervention of the ICC. Certainly, post-conflict transitional justice is often undertaken by regimes that are willing to prosecute members of a previous regime, and it would be understandable for those countries to ultimately have a better human rights record. However, the same cannot be said for international bodies undertaking prosecutions during a conflict, as indicted war criminals could simply exacerbate repression and continue to flout international law.

However, they addressed these questions as well, finding that prosecutions under civil wars do not have a different impact on repression than those in peace; indeed, prosecutions during civil wars may even lead to greater improvements on human rights records than prosecutions during peacetime. This is an incredible and truly groundbreaking finding, because it has applied statistical methods to the peace v. justice argument that has thus far been based on mostly qualitative case studies.

Indeed, I do think that many people are coming to the conclusion that the peace versus justice is a false dichotomy. While there was at first much backlash regarding cases in Uganda and Sudan, ultimately those who are indicted are responsible for massive human rights violations; while “peace” might depend on them temporarily, it would probably be best in the long-run if those responsible are simply taken out of the picture. I think the question now shouldn’t be whether we should wait to indict a war criminal or not, but should be about the enforcement of these arrest warrants. Faster and more efficient ways of apprehending war criminals would not only contribute to the deterrence effect, but it would also reduce the possibility of an indicted perpetrator continuing to wield power and exacerbate conflict at home.  Certainly, the challenges are numerous — but I really do think the next step should be to innovate better ways to arrest war criminals and gain international cooperation for their work, rather than to continue the debates about peace versus justice.

In the past decade, as we all know, social enterprise and business has become incredibly popular. The idea is incredibly compelling: utilize business practices while also bettering the world. Unleash the power of the market to solve social problems. We can make money and do good.

Along with its increasing popularity, the demand for learning about social enterprise has shot up. Many top universities are beginning to teach social enterprise, either through individual classes or even through majors and concentrations. Here are some examples:

• Duke’s Fuqua School of Business actually has an MBA Concentration in Social Entrepreneurship!
• Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management has an MBA Social Enterprise (SEEK) Major, a very comprehensive program
• NYU’s Wagner School has a Social Entrepreneurship undergraduate minor
• Stanford’s School of Business has an Executive Program in Social Entrepreneurship
• Yale’s School of Management also has a Program on Social Enterprise

And there are many, many more examples of cutting edge social enterprise programs.

But here’s where I question this approach: can we actually teach social enterprise? A while ago, I read the excellent book “How to Change the World” by David Bornstein, and the book discusses Ashoka’s original methodology of discovering social entrepreneurs. The social entrepreneurs they found were people who understood a gap in their society or community, and then found some way - often an innovative way - of addressing that gap and ultimately benefiting society and individuals. These social entrepeneurs are incredibly hard working, often laboring in obscurity and with low pay to solve social issues. They are driven by their unwavering passion and grand vision of how the world should be. From the website:

Perhaps our most important criterion, entrepreneurial quality is the defining characteristic of first class entrepreneurs. It defines leaders who see opportunities for change and innovation and devote themselves entirely to making that change happen. These leaders often have little interest in anything beyond their mission, and they are willing to spend the next ten to fifteen years making a historical development take place.

It seems to me that social entrepreneurs are people who are incredibly passionate about a new or better way of solving a social problem.

It also seems to me that many of the highly successful Ashoka fellows don’t have MBA’s or advanced degrees that teach them about social enterprise. Instead, they succeed because of their deep understanding of a social issue and of the needs of their beneficiaries, or those they ultimately hope to help. This strong understanding does not come about through an MBA, but is the result of being part of the society or communities you are aiming to help or reach. It comes from going into the field and speaking extensively with rural farmers, women lacking access to credit, or refugees trying to make a living in IDP camps. It comes from immersing yourself into these communities and learning so much about the needs of those you want to help that the solution crystallizes before your very eyes. Read Paul Polak’s book, “Out of Poverty” to understand how simple and powerful solutions can be found by simply going into the field and understanding local needs.

The most important thing for a social entrepreneur’s success is a vision of how precisely to solve a problem. If you have a strong vision and a good method of achieving that vision, success is possible. Second is resilience, determination, passion. Social entrepreneurs have to be highly driven to follow their vision above all else, despite innumerable obstacles in their way.

Surely an MBA in social enterprise can teach you about the workings of the market, or how to write a business plan, but aren’t these things you can pick up eventually? On the contrary, you can’t teach someone through school how to gain a vision, or how to be relentless and passionate.

Wouldn’t it be more worth it for aspiring social entrepreneurs to pursue graduate studies in the specific field they want to affect change in, to understand the needs of their clients or beneficiaries better?

Do those who study social entrepreneurship in the classroom eventually become social entrepreneurs? Or are social entrepreneurs those who have a vision and the passion to see it through, regardless of educational background?

Ultimately, there are certain business principles that can be taught to make the lives of social entrepreneurs easier and more efficient. However, social entrepreneurship itself cannot be taught; such success ultimately depends on qualities gained outside the classroom - vision, issue understanding, and passion.

Recently, I wrote a post about the injustice of international justice – that war criminals are given decent living conditions and fair trials, while more petty criminals are denied the same. I ran across a very related argument in an excellent article: After Arusha: Gacaca Justice in Post-Genocide Rwanda by Alana Tiemessen. Here it is:

Local prisoner support for the ICTR is very low. The U.S.-based Internews Network has shown what are known as the “Arusha Tapes” in Rwandan prisons to give genocide suspects a view of what has been happening in the ICTR trials and to encourage debate on Rwanda’s own judicial process. Ironically, while the tapes are meant to generate support for the tribunal, they have had opposite effect on local prisoners. The reactions to the tapes have revealed concerns among the prisoners over the absence of the death penalty at the tribunal and the luxurious living conditions of the tribunal prisoners as compared to those of the Rwandan prisons. The issue of the death penalty is significant because it is used by the national courts in Rwanda but not at the international tribunal. One prisoner replied, “why is it that the tribunal gives them more lenient sentences than us, they are the ones who told us to kill on radio . . . how come we are paying the higher price?”

The objections and shock registered by the prisoners to the Arusha Tapes were reflected in their support of the Gacaca process as an appropriate and fair judicial process. Awareness and acceptance of the community courts is evidenced by the high and increasing number of confessions among the prisoners, numbering in the tens of thousands, and a willingness to provide testimony and evidence against other genocide suspects. (p. 62)

The above quote really highlights how those who are most responsible are often given luxurious situations in comparison to the rest of the perpetrators. However, the truth is that national justice sectors - especially in Rwanda - are simply not well equipped to try thousands of genocidiares in a relatively short time period. That is why more funding and assistance is necessary to immediately begin building up national justice sectors as well. If all the funding and attention goes to international tribunals, then national justice systems do not develop simultaneously as most people seem to hope - but simply continue to be underdeveloped and lack the resources needed to try massive numbers of perpetrators.

That’s why, in Rwanda, Gacaca seems to offer a promising alternative which requires much less funding since it is based at the community-level. However, Gacaca suffers from it’s own problems - most dangerously that it is fueled by the same ethnic tensions that resulted in the genocide, lacks due process and does not always provide ‘fair’ trials to the accused, and can result in another form of “victor’s justice.” This isn’t necessarily the most promising route to take in the long run, and the international community shouldn’t forget about national justice sectors while looking at alternative mechanisms like Gacaca.

Still, the idea of communities trying those responsible for the genocide and then reintegrating the perpetrators into their societies is indeed powerful - and can seem a more fair alternative to allowing perpetrators to languish indefinitely in national prisons. It is certainly a step forward, but is by no means a panacea.

Also, happy new year to all!