Significantly updated 4-26-21

“My intent has been, is, and will continue to be, that those who read my works shall think and meditate upon fundamental problems, and has never been to hand them completed thoughts. I have always sought to agitate and, even better, to stimulate, rather than to instruct.

Neither do I sell bread, nor is it bread, but yeast or ferment.”
—Miguel de Unamuno

More thoughts on the Hydra: Hydra Theory 101

Preface
Humanitarians in all contexts need to be mindful of how privileging forces come in to play in virtually every interaction, person to person or organization to organization; within one’s organization or between the home organization and the affected populations. Awareness of cultural context is paramount, and understanding the Hydra is a useful tool. Standard training for any humanitarian includes defining and identifying examples of ethnocentrism. ‘Ethno’ means group and thus ethnocentrism is seeing everything from the value system and perspective of one’s own group or culture. Just as you will be hard pressed to be an effective humanitarian being ethnocentric, the same goes for being myopically centered in other ways. Think now of the heads of the Hydra.

Probing deeper with more questions
The Hydra analogy can be useful and discussions should always be grounded using practical examples that resonate on both the personal and organizational level. That said, I think there is a place for ‘Hydra Theory 101. Here are some additional thoughts and questions related to privileging forces, each a good point of departure for a deeper understanding. To be clear, all of the short explications I add to each is barely scratching the surface of what could be more deeply explored. [See here for all Hydra related posts.]

Racism the most significant privileging force?
Granted the basic fact of the complex and powerful intersectionality of all eight forces, each is unique.  As they are depicted in the image of the Hydra, each head is the same size, inferring equivalent danger and harm. But can that be true? Certainly in this time of #BLM it be argued that racism and the xenophobia it gives rise to is far more powerful than most of the other privileging forces? But what about the other forces? Which is worse, sexism of racism, and by what measures? Can ableism be put next to classism in terms of harm?

What factors are involved?
Elsewhere I have argued that differentiation almost always deteriorates into stratification. Within the framework of sociocultural evolution it is not until recently, that is about 6000 years ago, that humans began to organize them selves into non-nomadic states. Prior to that we lived in much smaller groups mostly characterized by and egalitarian way of life. With the rise of agriculture and the domestication of animals and plant materials came this new form of social organization. It is in this context that all of the heads of the Hydra became much more virulent, and the transition from differentiation to stratification happened time after time. At the macro level a long view of world history indicates that many forms of differentiation resisted any such transition for tens of thousands of years, with perhaps hetero/cisnormatity and anthropocentrism being two examples. Anthropologists describe many cultures which functioned very well rejecting the concept of gender binary and which lived with an ethos that humans were are part of nature, and needed to respect other life on the planet.

On a more micro level, during face to face interaction for example, some differences in privileging statuses can remain benign for long periods only to degenerate into toxic othering. With rare exceptions, people have some privileged statues in most social interactions relative to the others present. Indeed, one can on both sides of the othering dynamic. The array and complexity of relative privileging statues increases exponentially as the number of participants increases. Every interaction has the possibility of being a microaggression¹, intended or, more frequently, unintended. How does the flow of interactions become impacted by harmful comments (verbal or non-verbal)?

On both the macro and micro levels, under what circumstances are these processes accelerated? Remain inhibited?  Avoided all together?

Which are easier to grasp?
Are some of the privileging forces more obvious to the typical observer and hence easier to grasp than others? Do most people even accept the premise of anthropocentrism?I think it is good to ask if the groups of individuals who are likely to be marginalized have their voices heard and under what conditions. Do most people even accept the premise of anthropocentrism, for example?

Religions normalizing and institutionalizing privileging?
Are some privileging forces more deeply woven into our major religions than others, for example sexism and heteronormativity? Certainly in their most fundamentalist forms all three Abrahamic religions appear to support racism, sexism, and heteronormativity at least as interpreted by the Taliban in Afghanistan and evangelicals in the US. Both seem quite certain that women and non-heteronormative people need to be treated as inferiors. That said, the Abrahamic religions originated based on ideologies of love and compassion. How is it that the baser emotions of hatred and fear and come to dominate the fringes in our modern cultures?

Unchecked capitalism and neoliberalism fuel the Hydra
And now we have to address the elephant in the room and ask the question, ‘Are some of the forces exasperated by and/or understood more easily relative to the forces of capitalism and neoliberalism than others?’ My cards on the table, I do believe that unchecked capitalism and neoliberalism have glorified and normalized gluttony and greed. We live in an absurd world where one person has more money than anyone could use in hundreds of lifetimes. Neoliberalism is in ideology based on the assumption that a free market is efficient in proportion to levels of government regulation: less control, more freedom and efficiency. A free market, unhindered by governments or governmental regulation, will be able to organically identify and then find ways to monetize the satisfaction of all human needs. Capitalism is the economic system which drives the neoliberal agenda. Neoliberalism may indeed be the idea that swallowed the world.

I have written in some detail that all of the heads of the Hydra have in common the act of ‘othering’, and that social differentiation -any differences humans may have- almost inevitably degenerates into stratification where one group justifies dominating the other.  All of the ‘isms’ represented by the Hydra are made possible by othering and the subsequent justification of the domination of one group by another.

If othering is the heart of the Hydra then perhaps capitalism and neoliberalism are the food, the fuel.

Let’s go through each of the eight heads of the Hydra and imagine how capitalism and neoliberalism make them more toxic, more dangerous.

• Patriarchy: Does capitalism support the patriarchy? Can feminism and capitalism coexist? How do patriarchy and capitalism jointly reinforce the oppression of women? These are just a few of the many questions that must be asked, and there are scores of scholars, past and present, doing just that, most answering with a strong affirmation that capitalism contributes to sexism.
• Racism: Some argue that racism and capitalism are conjoined twins.  The North Atlantic slave trade is just one example; there are countless others. This is worth extensive discussion and is indeed the premise of countless books and articles.
• Colonialism/Paternalism: A recent article in The Guardian “The Invention of Whiteness: the long history of a dangerous idea” does a very good job sketching out how ‘whiteness’ was invented and then used to justify racism and its place in the rise of the colonial powers. William Easterly’s The Tyranny of Experts (see chapter 4) is an earlier  description of same. The research on this topic is copious, compelling, and a must read for anyone wanted to ‘decolonize’ the humanitarian sector.
• Hetero/cisnormativity: The argument that Queer Oppression is Etched in the Heart of Capitalism is not uncontroversial, and there is a rich (albeit somewhat recent) range of discussion on this topic.
• Classism/class privilege: Well, this one speaks for itself. Charles Darwin and Karl Marx had much in common but nothing more significant than the fact that they both articulated fundamental algorithms. Biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky argued that “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.” In that same vein and following the lead of the economic determinism articulated by Marx, I will argue that nothing in society makes sense except in the light of capitalism. This of course includes all of the damage done by the glorification and normalization of gluttony and greed.
• Ableism (physical, mental, and intellectual): As I write this there are waves of critique aimed at the United States for hoarding of vaccines. Disasters -in this case a global pandemic- always hit those on the margins the hardest, especially physical or health related events. That Covid has been horrific for those who are disabled is not in question. Capitalism is based on a myopic quest to maximize profits, and hence have both an economic and ideological interest to exclude workers based on perceived disability.
• Ageism: Linked to ableism, ageism is woven into the very fabric of modern capitalism where workforces value youth. Capitalism profits from making us fear aging.
• Anthropocentrism: We are on the brink of environmental collapse. The climate crisis is real and is causing increasingly frequent extreme weather events which generate the need for a humanitarian response. The recent Zoom meeting of global leaders is likely to yield more talk than action largely because the mantra of capitalism is to protect jobs at any cost. Our mentality of exploitation is driven by our quest for ‘freedom’ from oppressive government interference, the very core philosophy of liberalism. Destruction of the planet will proceed apace if there’s a buck to be made. Convince me otherwise.

Each of the above discussions is worth having in more detail, of course, but I think my point has been made: the heads of the Hydra are all fueled by capitalism and neoliberal ideas.

Additional questions to consider:

• With respect to intersectionality, are some forces more salient than others, i.e., have more multiplicative properties?
• Are some of these forces more culturally universal than others? Indeed, as our world becomes more globalized and homogenized by transnational trade, communication, and media consumption I will argue that toxic privileging forces exist in varying degrees in all world cultures.
• People can have privileged statuses, of course, but so can organizations. Does an INGO based in the Global North have more sway in, for example, a cluster meeting?
• By taming these individual heads I mean ‘bending the moral arc’ by changing behavioral norms, instituting policies, passing and enforcing local, national, and international laws, and other proactive measures. Which heads are easiest to tame and which are the hardest? Related, do (for example) passing laws related to one head make change relative to the other heads easier? Doing anti-sexism laws impact laws related to racism or vice versa, for example?

Hydra Theory 101
I started this post with a quote from my favorite philosopher, Miguel de Unamuno. He said, “Neither do I sell bread, nor is it bread, but yeast or ferment.” And that is exactly what I am offering here, an invitation to press to its edges this Hydra metaphor. From these abstract ideas and challenges I suggest we now turn to something more straightforward.

A group exercise using the Hydra
Below is a group exercise which may help individuals deepen understanding of the Hydra’s privileging forces. This exercise can be used with everyone from young undergraduates to seasoned humanitarians. A facilitator will need to frame the exercise and act as a guide through the questions and subsequent discussion, taking notes as examples are given and points are made.

Noting your privilege: an exercise
Though not a high percentage of our overall population, globally there are many people who would be on the marginalized side of all seven (now eight counting anthropocentrism) heads of the Hydra. One can imagine a for example, an elderly, poor, blind, non-white, lesbian from the majority world (aka Global South). That point granted, the vast majority of people across the world ‘enjoy’ one or more privileged statues.

For this exercise identity all of your privileges. One by one describe a situation where you gained some benefit or advantage from each. Now consider the following questions:

• Assuming you enjoy more than one privileged status, are there situations where you were not sure which
  privilege have gave you an advantage in a particular situation?
• Were there situations when you realized in the moment that you were enjoying this privilege?
  Were there situations when you realized only later after reflection that you had enjoyed this privilege?
• Do you think others in the situation who shared your privilege were aware of the fact that you were gaining advantage based on your privilege?  How do you think they felt?
• Do you think others in the situation who did not share your privilege were aware of the fact that you were gaining advantage based on your privilege?  How do you think they felt?
• In each situation, how did you feel about gaining advantages based on your privilege?
• As you move through your day how common is it for you to go from a situation where you have privilege to one where you are marginalized?
• To what degree were you aware that you could use your position of privilege to be an ally to others? What does it mean to be an ally?  
• Describe a situation where you simultaneously were both privileged and marginalized.
• What norm changes, new or revised policies laws, and/or additional enforcement of any existing or new policies and laws can you suggest that might defuse awkward, unfair, and/or marginalizing privileging asymmetries?

The facilitator can bring the discussion to a close by listing all of the major points made, highlighting particularly useful and relevant examples, and by underscoring the need to examine useful, practical and effective ways to encourage interactional patterns which minimizes the impact of these privileging forces and maximizes the chance for structural changes which mitigate the perpetuation of the negative impacts of these forces.

Identifying examples of taming the Hydra
Looking at this grid, participants are asked to contribute examples of actions which have helped ‘tame the Hydra’ and bend the moral arc toward justice. Examples can be from history or recent activities, and the overall goal of this exercise is to create a database of examples which may inspire others to act.

Here are some examples, mostly from the US. 

Patriarchy:  At the national leveling the US, Title IX states that “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” This law had the intended impact, not fully realized at yet of literally ‘evening the playing field’ for female athletes in the US.

Race/ethnicity

¹Microaggressions in Everyday Life (2nd edition 2020) by Derald Wing Sue and Lisa Spanierman explore microaggressions in the context of higher education in the US. Their insights are easily transferred to other settings and I think this book might be useful for those in the humanitarian sector.

Follow

Share on Tumblr

Tom Arcaro

Tom Arcaro is a professor of sociology at Elon University. He has been researching and studying the humanitarian aid and development ecosystem for nearly two decades and in 2016 published 'Aid Worker Voices'. He recently published his second and third books related to the humanitarians sector with 'Confronting Toxic Othering' published in 2021 and 'Dispatches from the Margins of the Humanitarian Sector' in 2022. A revised second edition of 'Confronting Toxic Othering' is now available from Kendall Hunt Publishers

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:

“Homo homini lupus [man is wolf to man]. Who in the face of all his experience of life and of history, will have the courage to dispute this assertion?“

–Sigmund Freud Civilization and Its Discontents (1930)

More Rohingya being moved to Bhashan Char is a win for national sovereignty

More Rohingya being relocated
Less than a month ago I wrote about the move of over 1600 Rohingya refugees being ‘voluntarily’ relocated from Cox’s Bazar to the small island of Bhashan Char. As I write this a second wave of 1,804 Rohingya have been transported to the island by the Bangladeshi navy. I put ‘voluntarily’ in quotations because there is reason to question how these families were chosen for the move.  The UNHCR has not been given access to key details about the move but has urged the Bangladeshi government to not relocate any refugees against their will.

Despite statements and pleas from the UN, ASEAN, and various humanitarian and human rights organizations, the Bangladeshi government is planning the relocation of up to 100,000 Rohingya to Bhashan Char in the coming months, ostensibly to ease the pressure on the existing refugee camps in Cox’s Bazar which now number nearly 1 million Rohingya. Just as they did when choosing to graciously receive the Rohingya genocide survivors, Bangladesh is a sovereign nation now taking action to address the complex problems in the camps.

Another win for national sovereignty
The 1648 the Peace of Westphalia ushered in the modern nation-state system in the west, and, ultimately, globally. One of its main tenants is that of national sovereignty, the idea that each nation-state is granted full control of its territory. Born as a solution to chronic wars, the emerging nation-state system slowly replaced an array of kingdoms, empires, and confederations.

Three hundred years later in 1948 the UN agreed upon the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with an emphasis on Humanity as a whole. Drafted by a distinguished international  panel and approved by vote of the UN, this historic document remains the beginning point for most international human rights law.

In many ways I see the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a historic moral high water mark motivated by, among other factors, the collective human angst generated by the horrors of the Holocaust. It was as if we, as humanity, realized that our species had the ability to rise above Freud’s warning, that homo homini lupus, man is wolf to man. Freud was right in that our history is darkly marked by countless wars and by unending and unimaginably cruel treatment of the marginalized other. Yet over time various agreements, treaties, policies and laws have been enacted both within and between nations that have functioned to slowly but surely ‘bend the moral arc toward justice.’¹  Collectively these sociopolitical structural changes have positively impacted social norms. Perhaps we are taming our inner wolf.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights had the potential of countering the ultimately toxic support of nationalism -and hence ethnocentrism and racism- embedded in the concept of Westphalian sovereignty. But it failed not the nations of the world but humanity itself, doing so by not confronting the inherent paradox that just as ‘man is wolf to man’ one nation is wolf to other nations.  By not confronting the sacred cow of national sovereignty this document ultimately allows for what is happening just now in Myanmar and Bangladesh.

Myanmar has been accused of genocide and is being tried in the international courts. Though ample evidence exists  that it acted and continues to act horribly toward religious and ethnic minorities, the best the international community can do is impotently shake its finger. Economic sanctions, as in other places around the world, make the lives of the poor worse but are no more than a nuisance to those in power.  International Court of Justice (ICJ) and UN mandates and urgings have failed to bring justice to the Rohingya.

Myanmar is acting as a sovereign nation. Bangladesh is acting as a sovereign nation. Both are acting the way they are despite pressure from transnational entities like ASEAN and the UN and from many human rights and humanitarian organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Fortify Rights.

Let me point our quickly that though I join together the nations of Myanmar and Bangladesh in the example above, they are far, far apart in terms of the degree of egregiousness. Myanmar is overtly genocidal where Bangladesh, in the case of relocating refugees to Bhashan Char, merely taking a reasonable -if questionable- action.

Beyond the nation-state model?
Can there be a time when the needs of humanity override the rights of nations?  Is it possible to add teeth to the ineffective rhetoric and action by actors like the UN and human rights organizations?

To be clear, I believe that nationalism is just thinly disguised ethnocentrism and that both, as Venn diagrams, overlap dangerously with racism and other forms of toxic othering.

Many have pointed out that in this age of globalization the nation-state system is little more than window dressing and that we have already gone back to a system of ‘kingdoms, empires, and confederations’, though this time more explicitly fed by money and power. These new entities are not really new. The heads on Hydra that is capitalism shape shift in name and form but remain the same in essence. The most powerful people in the world today are not the heads of state but rather corporate leaders and the super-rich.

There is reason for optimism. In many ways this shift is happening incrementally and is perhaps being accelerated by the climate change crisis we face as one planetary ecosystem, as one humanity. One notable example is the news from the city of Dayton, Ohio in the US. On December 30th the city leaders voted on the Dayton End Genocide Resolution, locally reported to be the world’s first municipal resolution condemning genocide and other crimes against humanity. This is one small but significant step in the right direction. I suspect the framers of this resolution know well about the genocide in Myanmar and the plight of the Rohingya.

In the short term, I believe, the best that we can do as individuals is to continually use our voices, our actions, and our votes to urge our leaders -national, international, and other important actors- to prioritize humanity over nation.² 

I’ll close with reference to another social philosopher, perhaps even more misunderstood than Freud. In The Gay Science Friedrick Nietzsche refers to “We who are without Fatherlands”, and he critiques those who are nationalistic, who seek

“…to advocate nationalism and race hatred and to be able to take pleasure in the national scabies of the heart and blood poisoning that now leads the nations of Europe to delimit and barricade themselves against each other as if it were a matter of quarantine.”

To fully realize our potential as humanity -and that includes surviving the increasingly real global climate crisis- we must find a way to put humanity over nation and find ways to reverse the economic system’s tendency to pool wealth (and hence power) into fewer and fewer hands. That this paradigm shift must happen is obvious to many, but as in much of life the implementation step is tricky and difficult.

Back to Bhashan Char
I argue above that at base, the issues in Bangladesh and Myanmar have the same source, nationalistic motivations. The solution to many global problems is a call to reason, a call to recognize that nationalism frequently and toxically reverts to racism in various forms. Perhaps the global #BlackLivesMatter movement is humanity crying out, hoping to confront  the social and economic forces that have served only to divide us.

¹  Steven Pinker’s The Better Angel’s of Our Nature provides some good examples and arguments answering the question posed in his subtitle ‘Why Violence Has Declined’.

²  What I am leaving out here is that the dominant force of global neoliberalism makes the job of prioritizing humanity over the nation-state nearly impossible. We must aggressively challenge the assumption that neoliberal policies and practices are pro-Humanity. They are not.

Follow

Share on Tumblr

Tom Arcaro

Tom Arcaro is a professor of sociology at Elon University. He has been researching and studying the humanitarian aid and development ecosystem for nearly two decades and in 2016 published 'Aid Worker Voices'. He recently published his second and third books related to the humanitarians sector with 'Confronting Toxic Othering' published in 2021 and 'Dispatches from the Margins of the Humanitarian Sector' in 2022. A revised second edition of 'Confronting Toxic Othering' is now available from Kendall Hunt Publishers

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:

A Code of Ethics for Privileged Anti-Othering Persons: the humanitarian imperative and Hydra revisited

“Humanitarianism started off as a powerful discourse; now it is a discourse of power, both at the international and at the community level.” (p. 190)

–Antonio Donini “Humanitarianism, Perceptions, and Power”

In the Eyes of Others (Abu Sada, editor; 2012)

Overview
Below I expand on previous posts related to the humanitarian imperative, the ‘privileging forces’ Hydra, and the  quest for global social justice. Studying and engaging with humanitarians all over the world has provided me with a broad base of insights, and I especially thank those from the majority world (aka Global South) who have so patiently offered me their thoughts, feelings, and opinions.

The recent reemergence of a surprisingly inclusive #BlackLivesMatter movement both here in the US and around the world has many talking frankly about systemic racism and toxic white nationalism, and these conversations have generated action. One perhaps not insignificant example of change is the fact that NASCAR, the auto racing organization most popular in the US Southeast has recently banned confederate flags at sanctioned events. These flags have long been a racist symbol and commonly found in abundance at NASCAR races. This change was initiated by one Black driver and then embraced by the policy makers in NASCAR. A second and related example is that Mississippi appears to be on the verge of changing its long divisive flag, deleting the confederate flag embedded in the upper corner.

Within the humanitarian sector there are #BlackLIvesMatter conversations being held. Here is the statement by MSF-USA describing racism as a public health crisis. MSF International’s position is similar, admitting that the organization had ‘failed to tackle institutional racism’, but noting that, “We get a lot of ‘all lives matter’ reaction from colleagues from different parts of the world. … Context is everything.” The deep intersectionality between racism and colonialism embedded within the humanitarian sector needs very close scrutiny and eventually aggressive action at every level, especially within the UN organizations and ‘big box’ INGO’s like World Vision, OXFAM and others. The seriousness and scale of this self examination and policy change must be even more progressive and soul-searching that was done in reaction to the OXFAM (and others) #MeToo crisis.

The Hydra
Last October [2019] I attended the ALNAP conference in Berlin, a mixed gathering of humanitarian practitioners and academics like myself who have studied and commented on the humanitarian ecosystem. There I used the metaphor of the mythical Hydra, a multi-headed monster, to talk about how all of the privileging forces that serve to oppress those marginalized all over the globe, almost always the object of humanitarian actions. The underlying fuel to keep the Hydra alive and active is the toxic and pervasive process of othering which inevitably leads quickly from differentiation (A ≠ B) to stratification (A ≠ B therefore A > B) and using any power asymmetry to justify the ‘isms’.

Many are now learning both old and new lessons about how deeply racism is baked into the US (and global) culture, and most are seeking ways to directly and productively join the movement toward true racial justice. JLove Calderon and Tim Wise offer this statement in an article titled, “Code of Ethics for White Anti-Racists”

“We are persons classified as white in this society. As aspiring anti-racist allies/collaborators, we seek to work with people of color (and follow their leadership) to create real multiracial democracy. We do not fight racism on behalf of people of color, or as an act of charity. We oppose white supremacy because it is an unjust system, and we believe in the moral obligation to resist injustice.”

This statement, all of it, spoke to me, and I immediately related it to the lessons I have been learning while listening to humanitarians from the majority world. Without using the phrase, they critique the ‘white savior complex’ and voice support for a humanitarian perspective. Read here what some of the respondents said on our survey of humanitarians from the majority world and for further observations about the ‘white savior complex.’

Over 30 years ago Kimberle Crenshaw presented us with the conceptual tool of intersectionality. In this 2017 interview she reflects,

“Intersectionality is a lens through which you can see where power comes and collides, where it interlocks and intersects.”

Humanitarian principles and intersectionality are a critical topic as efforts to make structural, permanent change regarding all privileging forces multiply and matures.

So, with deep gratitude to Calderon and Wise, I offer here a “Code of Ethics for Privileged Anti-Othering Persons”, addressing all seven heads off the Hydra.

We are persons classified as privileged in our global society. As aspiring anti-patriarcal, anti-racist, anti-colonial, anti-hetero/cisnormativity, anti-classist, anti-ablist, and anti-ageist allies/collaborators, we seek to work with people differently privileged (and to follow their leadership) in order to create a more just world where all humans have pathways to dignity. We do not fight these privileging forces on behalf of those marginalized, or as an act of charity. We oppose privileging forces because they create unjust systems, and we believe in the moral obligation to resist injustice.

The fact that these privileging forces are woven deeply into the fabric of all modern global cultures and that they ‘interlock and intersect’ with each other makes confronting them difficult.  Like a cancer, these privileging forces infect all institutions of the social system, none are sparred. Religion. Education. Sport and leisure. The economy. Family. Government. Military. Media. Entertainment. All are infected, and all, again, ‘interlock and intersect’ to synergistically and effectively maintain structures of marginalization and oppression. All must be seen as mutually interdependent. In addition, the economic determinists will point out that an amoral -and hence, I argue, immoral global capitalism works synergistically with the heads and the othering body of the Hydra.

Embracing a “Code of Ethics for Privileged Anti-Othering Persons” means understanding that one simultaneously may be privileged and marginalized. For example a queer Black male from the minority world, aka Global North, enjoys male and Global North privilege while enduing heternormativity and racism. Privilege always depends upon the social context currently inhabited and can change even moment to moment.

Humanitarian imperative and bending the arc
For me, the humanitarian imperative begins with the assumption that all human lives have equal value, and every human deserves a life marked by dignity and access to basic human rights. Those who commit to humanitarian values must aggressively fight all of the systemic ‘isms’ represented by the heads of the Hydra.  Cutting off one head is not only futile but impossible; as per the myth of the Hydra it will only come back as two. Hence the body of the Hydra, fed by toxic othering, must be the focus of our attacks.  That means a comprehensive and coordinated effort to address all systemic misuse of power certainly by individuals but even more importantly by institutions wielding power, clearly including the humanitarian sector itself. Ultimately, since human nature -albeit the the darker parts- produced the Hydra, the Hydra must be tamed and transformed, not killed.

In previous posts I have used the language and imagery of defeating the Hydra, not by lopping off each head but rather by fataly attacking the Hydra’s body. Defeating the body, the toxic engine supporting and perpetuating each of the heads, seemed a logical action point. Upon reflection, I must admit that my manner of framing the solution –
killing the Hydra- was perhaps yet another example of toxic masculinity emerging from my imagination. Taming rather than killing reflects perhaps a more feminist -and humane- approach. Indeed, I would have done well reading more by and about bell hooks (and others) who articulated long ago the a feminist model of conflict resolution which advocates the “…deconstruction of unequal power relationships in societal structures.”

Not only is taming the better goal it is, looking more closely, the only way forward that pays attention to the fundamental fact that we cannot ‘change human nature.’ The evolutionary psychologist will tell us that how our brain works is, in large part, based on our evolutionary history and that our basic emotions are deeply wired into our brains, specifically located in the limbic system. We can’t eliminate fear, a basic emotion, but we can, as President Kennedy argued, work toward a gradual evolution of human institutions.

My previous thinking was wrong, misleading, and borderline mysognistic. Taming, not killing the Hydra must be our goal.

Another shortcoming in my previous thoughts on the Hydra was too little attention to what it means to ‘deconstruct unequal power relationships.’ Bending the moral arc toward justice means identifying and then reversing all instances where hatred and fear have been encoded into norms, policies, and laws on all levels, locally, nationally, and internationally. This includes, of course, all of the organizations and bureaucracies in which we learn and work. This work demand a close reading of [all] local, national and global history sometimes made difficult by racist resistance. The 1619 Project is a good model for a deeper examination of how racism has permeated US history.

Though our illustration above implies otherwise, some heads of the Hydra might well be seen as far more important than others.  To wit, racism impacts most of the people on this planet, and thus must be confronted with full measure of effort. That said, the fight against systemic racism need be anchored in rooting out power misuse allowing for all forms of toxic othering.

How can this be accomplished by an underfunded humanitarian industry designed mostly to respond to natural and human made crises? There is no quick or easy answer to that, but I do suspect that Donini (quoted above) is right: humanitarianism is a discourse of power. One very important step in understanding and then changing toxic power arrangements is to listen to and work with those who have been marginalized by misuse of power.  Those who are multiply marginalized (especially women of color) have much to teach, and it is our job to listen and to follow their lead, always demanding an inclusive scope of both understanding and action.

One such voice is Namati. Established seven years ago, Namati.org is a global legal empowerment movement.  From their web site: “Namati means ‘bending the arc.’ With leadership from those most impacted, we will bend the arc of history together.”  The current #BlackLIvesMatter movement is a necessary and vital part of bending the ‘moral arc of the universe toward justice.’¹

This phrase has a long history, with President Barak Obama borrowing it from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who adapted it from abolitionist minister Theodore Parker. Parker said,

“I do not pretend to understand the moral universe. The arc is a long one. My eye reaches but little ways. I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by experience of sight. I can divine it by conscience. And from what I see I am sure it bends toward justice.”

Bending this arc is a long process, and one that takes constant, coordinated effort. Gains won must be aggressively preserved or they can be lost very quickly. The Namati organization has it right: legal changes are key in bending the arc. But it must be

stressed that structures within all other social institutions must be altered as well. Humanitarians have great potential and responsibility as ‘arc benders’ and, as stressed one more time, demands accepting leadership ‘from those most impacted.’

Understanding interconnected and baked in privileging forces and then responding to the humanitarian imperative is hard, complicated, and a long term commitment. But is a commitment mandated by our devotion to the cause of justice for all. This mandate includes, well, inclusion, and we must act on the fact that all of the heads of the Hydra are fueled by othering and hate.

In the words of the late John Lewis, champion of civil rights, we must “Continue to build union between movements stretching across the globe because we must put away our willingness to profit from the exploitation of others.” The title of his posthumously published editorial is “Together, You Can Redeem the Soul of your Nation” but I feel he would approve of this re-statement: “Together, we can redeem the soul of humanity” so that it adds a call to action for those subscribing to the “Code of Ethics for Privileged Anti-Othering Persons” discussed above. To “redeem the soul of humanity” and to bend the moral arc of the universe toward justice means confronting, challenging, and changing some near-sacred social structures.  Focused social change is never quick nor easy, and we must be willing to make “good trouble” to make this happen.

A broader perspective?
Are we bending the arc?  It might not seem so if you look only at the last six months or even 60 years. What if we look at the last 6000 years?  According to Steven Pinker there has been steady progress toward a more ‘civilized’ world.  He argues in his 2011 book The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined that as a species we have become progressively less violent and cruel to others, that world cultures have slowly become more intolerant of violence in the family, and within and between peoples.

Justification for othering comes from many sources through history, and in one section focuses in on the Abrahamic religions. Pinker writes,

“The scriptures present a God who delights in genocide, rape, slavery, and the execution of nonconformists, and for millennia those writings were used to rationalize the massacre of infidels, the ownership of women, the beating of children, dominion over animals, and the persecution of heretics and homosexuals. Humanitarian reforms such as the elimination of cruel punishment, the dissemination of empathy-inducing novels, and the abolition of slavery were met with fierce opposition in their time by ecclesiastical authorities and their apologists. The elevation of parochial values to the realm of the sacred is a license to dismiss other people’s interests, and an imperative to reject the possibility of compromise.”

The humanitarian reforms that Pinker meticulously details over many chapters are actions that bend the moral arc. They have had a cumulatively powerful impact, creating at least a less overtly violent world and a best a more just and moral humanity.

Let’s push Pinker a bit. I’ll grant his historical observations, but question whether in this 21st century the pendulum may be swinging back. It is possible that the net actions of humans in the last 20 years have undone much of this ‘positive bending’ of the moral arc? Have greed and gluttony been so thoroughly normalized and glorified in our global culture that even the better angels of our nature cannot purge them?

In 1940 -80 years ago- at the very end of The Great Dictator Charlie Chaplin gives an amazing and passionate speech saying that “greed has poisoned men’s souls” and calling on humanity to reject those motivated by greed and who pedal fascism. According to many social critics unchecked capitalism and neoliberalism in the last 80 years have served only to further ossify toxic values serving only the ultra rich. Though Chaplin’s speech champions the resilience and morality of the human spirit, there is current evidence that fascism may have again been embraced by those in power in many parts of the world.  Saudi Arabia under Mohammed bin Salam. Myanmar under Aung San Suu Kyi. Russia under Putin.  Brazil under Bolsonaro. And, yes, perhaps, the United States under Donald Trump.

I’ll offer that an antidote to the poison of fascism is to embrace the “Code of Ethics for Privileged Anti-Othering Persons” I presented above. Those of us, like Charlie Chaplin, who believe in the power of humanity have a moral duty to resist injustice in all forms.

Final note
My students have suggested that the Hydra needs another head describing our species’ anthropocentric perspective and the consequent destructive ‘ecocidal’ relationship we have with the environment. We ‘other’ the very natural world that sustains us and this has led us to the brink of a massive climate disaster, which has already exasperated humanitarian crises across the globe, mostly in the majority world.  This impact is an example of environmental racism in action, and as such merits our immediate attention. Adding ‘anthropocentrism’ as an additional head to the Hydra may be in order. [See this for an update.]

As always, if you have any comment or feedback please contact me at arcaro@elon.edu.

And yes, I will be watching the movie highlighting the work of humanitarian Paul Farmer “Bending the Arc” when it is released and share my thoughts.

¹This section on bending the arc toward justice is an edited version of what I previously posted here.

Follow

Share on Tumblr

Tom Arcaro

Tom Arcaro is a professor of sociology at Elon University. He has been researching and studying the humanitarian aid and development ecosystem for nearly two decades and in 2016 published 'Aid Worker Voices'. He recently published his second and third books related to the humanitarians sector with 'Confronting Toxic Othering' published in 2021 and 'Dispatches from the Margins of the Humanitarian Sector' in 2022. A revised second edition of 'Confronting Toxic Othering' is now available from Kendall Hunt Publishers

More Posts - Website

Follow Me: