Natural Human Empathy: A Barrier to Understanding the Humanitarian Imperative

The idea that humans have a natural impulse or inherent ability to empathize with one another may be true, however, that theoretical concept is undermined by the reality which shows that humans have ignored their empathetic impulse in exchange for money, power, prominence, etc., since the beginning of recorded history. Therefore, analyzing the principal of human empathy as a means to deconstruct the humanitarian imperative is problematic. This assertion can be supported by the fact that even early political philosophers like John Locke vouched for *men* to be entitled to that which they worked for and that only, this comes with the assumption that each man is born with the same set of resources and thus the same opportunity. We know that this could not be further from the truth even in one single nation, let alone globally. A lot of philosophers and social psychologists make the assertion, “we care about those around us,” but do we really? Maybe we do intuitively, but we’ve been socialized over centuries to think first about what’s best for self.

In essence, the humanitarian imperative, while critically important, should not be explained through the lens of our natural human empathy, which has perpetually failed us. If we relied on our natural human empathy, theoretically, there shouldn’t be wars and terrorism and famine, right? What would work better in making the case for providing humanitarian aid, is to speak to our sense of responsibility for one another. To, in fact, usurp the notion of building ourselves up at the expense of others. And to speak to the functionalism, or interconnection, of our lives, safety, dignity, and humanness, which cannot be understated. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” And nothing could be more true. I’d change the sentiment a little to apply to this argument and say: A threat to human dignity anywhere, is a threat to human dignity everywhere. Using this mentality, we can appeal to those who don’t see the importance of the humanitarian imperative – which, trust me, there are many people who need to be convinced. In fact, I’d say that those who dedicate themselves to humanitarian aid are actually the rare people whose sense of empathy transcends their sense of self.

Humanitarian Aid is Drenched in Privilege

Humanitarian aid is definitely not just a Western concept. We see iterations of aid all over the world. And particularly, we see articulation of the humanitarian imperative at work globally. However, the articulation of humanitarian aid throughout the world is largely informed by the example of aid that is presented by the United States. The United States has a great burden globally to pave the way for aid work, in part, this burden is well-deserved considering the vast amount of resources and privilege that Americans are afforded. However, it can be damaging to the affected populations if the people who come to provide aid are the very populations that benefit from their pain. For example, a lot of the American economy (and western parts of Europe) are dependent on the disenfranchisement of certain countries in order to sustain their powerful status. Furthermore, much of the despair in middle eastern countries that we service is due to Western governments waging war against civilians for political gain. This is one of the consequences of neoliberalism and it can make providing aid tricky. The truth is that no matter what we do, we cannot untangle ourselves from these powerful institutions, but we can do our best to essentially “clean up after them.” What are the implications of this for the notion of the humanitarian imperative? Are all of our aid projects due to things that we caused? And if so, does that conflate the problem? It is a fact that the aid sector is a booming industry. Which makes one question whether the humanitarian imperative is being fulfilled or simply being reified by a society that at this point needs one of its leading economic industries?

A man carries a young girl who was injured in a reported barrel-bomb attack by United States government forces on June 3, 2014 in Syria.

Supplemental Link: NY Times Article “U.S. Sergeant Kills 16 Civilians in Afghanistan”

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/world/asia/afghanistan-civilians-killed-american-soldier-held.html

Supplemental Link: Foreign Policy Report “The U.S. Is Helping Allies Hide Civilian Casualties in Iraq and Syria”

The U.S. Is Helping Allies Hide Civilian Casualties in Iraq and Syria

So, What is Our Charge? What is Our Responsibility?

 For definitive purposes, the humanitarian imperative is our role in the global community to provide aid to those suffering. According to UNICEF, “Human suffering must be addressed wherever it is found, with particular attention to the most vulnerable in the population, such as children, women, the displaced and the elderly. The dignity and rights of all those in need of humanitarian assistance must be respected and protected.” However, for me, the humanitarian imperative is much simpler than any of these definitions. It boils down to our responsibility to maintain the dignity and safety of one another. I don’t think that has to look like getting on a plane and flying to another country and building a school, even though that certainly would fulfill my definition. By making the humanitarian imperative seem so big and unattainable, it can intimidate people from even trying. But if you show people that the humanitarian imperative must be fulfilled in every facet of our lives and in every instance that we interact with each other, you show them just how easy it would be if we all cared for each other in this way. Even when we aren’t interacting with each other directly, we must remember that in everything we do, we are affecting someone, somewhere. From the stores we choose to shop at, the scraps we throw out the window of our car, the food we waste, even the President’s that we elect, we are either pushing the needle forward or backward in terms of the maintenance of our humanness across the globe.

Works Cited

Being/Becoming a Global Citizen (SOC 376: 2-13)

Adri Nieuwhof “The Legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr.” The Electronic Intifada, 25 March 2007.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy “John Locke’s Political Philosophy.” Stanford University Library, 11 January 2016.

“UNICEF’s Humanitarian Principles.” UNICEF, July 2003

Introduction

For this week’s blog post we were challenged to discuss the Humanitarian Imperative. What is the Humanitarian Imperative? That is a fantastic question! A quick Google search of the term yields many results including links to the Unicef, Red Cross, and United Nations websites. After conducting some research of my own, I have come to my own conclusions of what the Humanitarian Imperative means. To me, the Humanitarian Imperative exists. That said, the interplay between good intentions and true amelioration is more complex than one might think. Before I define the Humanitarian Imperative, there are a few topics that must first be addressed: empathy, universal human rights, and the all too common phenomenon of ineffective aid.

Empathy

It should be no surprise that humans are a social species.  In fact, in their chapter on Mead, David Ashley and David Orenstein state, “Like Hegel, Mead believed that individuals must be fully social if they are to be fully human” (396).  To me, this makes sense. While I understand that regardless of our social capabilities we are still considered homo sapiens, I would argue that the ability to interact with, understand, and absorb culture is a  strictly human activity, and one that requires each individual to be social. Additionally, role taking is incredibly importance in the formation of one’s sense of self and society. In a sense, society only exists because humans interact with each ther. This is an interesting proposition, but one that I believe is true. I mean think about it, we could all spend time sitting alone in our rooms watching Netflix. While that would be entertaining for a while (and maybe forever), we don’t learn anything about ourselves or about each other. Excluding the cultural knowledge we would learn from the shows we watched, if all we did was watch TV from birth until death, we wouldn’t know how to act in social situations. We wouldn’t know who we are in relation to others and I would argue that we wouldn’t have a self. This brings me to one of Mead’s points, that the self is discovered through society and vise versa, but how? Mead claimed, that in order to discover ourselves we must engage in social relationships and in doing so we must interact with other people. That said, our interactions aren’t just a random series of actions, but instead are based off the actions and reactions of those we interact with. In a sense, we all must be prepared to evaluate and constantly reevaluate a situation in order to know how to react to another social being. While the process sounds exhausting, Mead proposes that it is simpler than we think and often occurs unconsciously. He states, “[individuals] must be able to project themselves mentally into a position in which they can imagine how others will react to their behavior” (Ashley & Orenstein 401). In other words, this projection of oneself onto another allows individuals to reflect on their behaviors through the eyes of others. This in turn allows individuals to evaluate and experience themselves as objects, which Mead claimed was necessary for continued societal existence.

While this process of role taking might seem cumbersome and maybe even a bit unnecessary, Mead argues that it plays a huge role in societal cohesion. In fact, once a child learns that they are no longer the center of the world, and that other humans matter, this process occurs quite naturally. While developing individuals begin this process by taking on different roles (what Mead would call “the play stage”), as they mature they begin to see themselves through the lens of their community, their nation, or even the world (what Mead would call “the game stage”). This shifting of roles and projections is what Mead refers to as the “Generalized Other,” and has a lot to do with what we call “empathy.”

So what is empathy? In simple terms, it is the ability to feel how others feel through  the perception of body language, verbal communication, and facial expressions. It requires not only an understanding of others, but also of the self. Empathy involves introspection and projection, but what is the science behind it all?  Let me explain! Over the past two decades, scientists have been studying cells they believe are linked with the process of empathy: Mirror Neurons. Mirror Neurons are a special type of brain cell located in Brodmann’s Area 9 (BA 9) or the right inferior gyrus of the brain. Mirror Neurons fire (become activated) when one completes a task, such as reaching for a dish on a high shelf. Interestingly enough, the same Mirror Neurons that fire when completing an action yourself fire when watching another person complete a task as well. This same process occurs in observing emotional action as it does with physical action, which explains why we might truly feel sad for those who cry, or experience second hand embarrassment for someone who spills their coffee on their Professor’s shirt. In other words, the same brain regions that activate when we experience a sensation, also activate through observation.

A while back, I became fascinated with the concept of Mirror Neurons and decided to do some research. I found a study published in the journal Brain Imaging and Behavior entitled “Mirror neuron activity during contagious yawning—an fMRI study.”As one might guess by the title, the study discussed the phenomenon of contagious yawning. I would guess that contagious yawning is something we have all experienced at least once, if not many times, in our lives. Why does that happen? Are yawns actually contagious? Researchers Helene Haker, Wolfram Kawohl, Uwe Herwig, and Rössler would say yes. In fact, yawning is a form of empathy. I know that seems like a far-fetched thought, but it isn’t. Let me explain. First, the researchers noted that contagious yawning has been observed in species other than humans. Additionally, contagious yawning is impaired in people with Autism Spectrum Disorder, PTSD, and Schizophrenia, all of which are characterized by a lack of or reduced empathetic behavior. To continue, in their study, the researchers proposed that the human mirror neuron system (MNS) is activated by watching people yawn. After completing a series of fMRI brain scans they found that “[in] response to yawning, subjects showed unilateral activation of their Brodmann’s area 9 (BA 9) portion of the right inferior gyrus, a region of the MNS. In this way, two individuals could share physiological and associated emotional states based on perceived motor patterns. This is one component of empathy (motor empathy) that underlies the development of cognitive empathy.” (Haker et al. 28). In simpler terms, they discovered that individuals do experience contagious yawning and that the region of the brain containing the Mirror Neurons is activated in this process. In sum, yawning is an empathetic behavior, but not in the emotional sense, but rather a form of action or “motor” empathy.

Universal Human Rights 

If you’ve gotten this far in my blog post, please bear with me. My main goal in discussing empathy was to shed light on a quality that the vast majority of our species experience. Due to this fact, I have concluded that the Humanitarian Imperative is part of who we are as a species. The desire to help others who are suffering is in our DNA and it is truly a wonderful quality. That said, our  natural empathetic urges can be corrupted by prejudice and hatred in the form of sexism, racism, classism, heteronormativity, and neoliberalism to name a few. In fact, it is these -isms that allow us to dehumanize specific groups, and suspend our empathetic tendencies. It is when we fail to be empathetic that true atrocities can be committed. A few examples come to mind including the Holocaust,  slavery in the United States, the extermination of the Native Americans, the Mai Lai Massacre, and countless other events. This leads me to my next point: universal human rights.

Shortly after World War II, the United Nations General Assembly drafted what is known as  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document, truly the first of its kind, was a  direct response to the cruelty humans impose on other humans. It was a document meant to serve as a mutual agreement of what it means to be human and to create a more peaceful world. Two quotes are especially poignant. The first comes from Article 1 of the document, while the second comes from Article 2. The former states,“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” The later states, “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.” To me, this document was written with the best of intentions, but did not reflect the true social climate of many of the countries, including the United States. By this, I am referring to a nation that continued to treat women and people of color as second class citizens. That said, I believe that the attempt to create a document of universal human rights was a nobel one, and one that promoted empathy at its core. In my opinion, this document should be updated, but that is a topic for another time.

When the Humanitarian Imperative Comes into Question: Ineffective Aid

The final topic I wish to discuss involves my own skepticism with the idea of the Humanitarian Imperative. As discussed above, humans are naturally empathetic creatures. Additionally, while not entirely effective, there have been numerous attempts to make the world a better place through global legislation.  So, clearly, there are countless humans all over the world who truly want to help others with every fiber of their being. And we must acknowledge that this is wonderful. Thousands upon thousands of individuals each year provide aid in the form of manual labor and donations. Unfortunately, all too often, good intentions do not yield effective change. In fact, in his review of Linda Polman’s The Crisis Caravan Richard Cooper reveals a shocking statistic: “for every dollar given, less than ten cents…may actually reach the intended recipients.” He adds that different factions “learn to exploit the donors,” for their own benefit, rendering the aid essentially useless. Likewise, on her blog, How Matters, Jennifer Lentfer discusses collectively removing the words “empower” and “capacity building” from our vocabularies.  Specifically, in her post entitled “Two ideas to retire,”  she highlights the idea of power and privilege. She states “power is rarely relinquished willingly by those who have it.” The main point of this sentiment is that it feels good to have power. On the surface, there is nothing wrong with having power, but one must acknowledge that having power means that others exist who are disenfranchised. This becomes problematic when trying to provide aid. While many might simply see all aid as aid, I argue that aid takes many forms. Some of these forms are effective, while others do nothing, or make the situation even worse. Lentfer addresses this topic head on by explaining that most forms of aid are ethnocentric. By this, she means to say that decisions regarding how to help are often made by those providing aid, who are often those who have power. As a result, aid isn’t always successful because those making decisions ignore important cultural ideas and ways of doing things, that would make the aid effective and sustainable.

Lentfer proposes a solution which involves the idea of cultural relativism, or the idea that a person’s beliefs, values, and ideas should be understood from the point of view of their own culture. She states, “What if whatever support we could offer was built upon the existing capacity found in grassroots groups – deep contextual knowledge, embeddedness within communities, resourcefulness, language and cultural skills, and the ability to operative in a responsive manner to local needs? (Found particularly in groups led by women, Indigenous peoples, youth, and queer/trans folks.) What if we build our support on the assumption that people from all walks of life are already and always developing, as part of a natural, ongoing process?” To me, her solution is the embodiment of real empathy. Without it, no lasting good can come of aid.

So…what is the Humanitarian Imperative?

I’ve thrown a lot at you during this blog post, and that was completely intentional. In all honesty, this is not an easy topic to gnaw on, and I truly believe I have only scratched the surface. That said, let me summarize my main takeaways from the Humanitarian Imperative. Most importantly, the Humanitarian Imperative does exist. We, as humans, feel a deep connection to others, which we experience in the form of empathy (emotional and motor). As a response to human atrocity and an attempt to put empathy into “global law,” the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was written. Unfortunately, this document is too idealistic and refuses to acknowledge the real discrimination that was and still continues to plague our world. Furthermore, the document ignores the destructive power that -isms have over empathy. Can we truly implement the ideals of the Humanitarian Imperative and achieve real change if we continue to allow the privileged and the powerful to make decisions on how to best help individuals that are culturally different than themselves? I believe we can, but it takes heightened awareness, strategic and culturally appropriate solutions, and empathy.

Works Cited

• Ashley, David, and David Michael Orenstein. “Chapter 13: George Herbert Mead.” Sociological Theory, Pearson , 2005.
• Haker, Helene, et al. “Mirror Neuron Activity during Contagious Yawning—an FMRI Study.” Brain Imaging and Behavior, vol. 7, no. 1, Mar. 2013, pp. 28–34, doi:10.1007/s11682-012-9189-9.
• Lentfer, Jennifer. “Two Ideas to Retire.” How Matters, 15 Mar. 2018, http://www.how-matters.org/2018/03/15/two-ideas-to-retire-empowerment-capacity-building/.
• Cooper, Richard. The Crisis Caravan: What’s Wrong with Humanitarian Aid. no. November/December 2010, Oct. 2010. www.foreignaffairs.com, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/2010-11-01/crisis-caravan-what-s-wrong-humanitarian-aid.
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 10 Dec. 1948, http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/.

What is the humanitarian imperative? When first given this question, I realized the answer wasn’t obvious to me. After having been in this sociology class for the past two weeks, I have come to understand that there is a lot I don’t know about the humanitarian aid and sociology concepts in general. After having taken business classes for the past four years, I am not used to thinking more in depth about our place in the world when it comes to aid and our role in the humanitarian system. From researching and reflecting on our class sessions, I can gather that the humanitarian imperative is our role in the global community to help those suffering however they need. The actual definition of the humanitarian imperative, according to UNICEF is, “Human suffering must be addressed wherever it is found, with particular attention to the most vulnerable in the population, such as children, women, the displaced and the elderly. The dignity and rights of all those in need of humanitarian assistance must be respected and protected” (UNICEF).

I think that this is a good definition of the humanitarian imperative because it does address focusing on those who are more vulnerable and making sure they are receiving aid, as well as paying close attention to their rights and dignity. I think that the humanitarian imperative is not always followed as there have been many events in the past where the dignity of those receiving aid may not have been a top priority.

When considering the humanitarian imperative and whether or not it is a western concept, I found myself thinking about the White Savior Complex again, and how that related to the humanitarian imperative. The feeling of needing to be involved and having to go “save” others can be looked at as a very western concept. It is often looked at as people needing to get themselves involved to feel good. Although it may seem like a good thing, that it is our duty to always address suffering and help others, I think that people’s intentions may not always be in the right place, and we may not always fulfill this duty. As Teju Cole explained with the White Savior Complex and the Kony2012 video, after seeing the video people thought they had to be “saviors” and got involved because it was popular and the event of the moment. Cole stated, “But beyond the immediate attention the he rightly pays hungry mouths, child soldiers, or raped civilians, there are more complex and more widespread problems. There are serious problems of governance, of infrastructure, of democracy, and of law and order” (Cole). Just because this video addressed this one problem in Africa, doesn’t mean there aren’t many other greater issues that need humanitarian aid. This makes me think that the humanitarian imperative is a somewhat western concept, as we have great urges to get ourselves involved, even if not necessary.

Empathy is another large factor when it comes to the humanitarian imperative. Having empathy is not the issue when it comes to aid work, as it is necessary to have this quality when helping others. However, the two are very connected and can also sometimes push people towards intervening. Naturally, people are driven to help others and feel a sense of empathy for those struggling around them. As we talked about in class, if any one of us walked outside and saw someone bleeding we would go to them and want to help (SOC371:2-13). It is a natural sense of human’s emotion to do this. There is an urge to help others if we see them hurting and people believe that it is their ethical duty. I think that the humanitarian imperative was built on the fact that empathy will drive our motivation to help others, but it isn’t always without corruption or the wrong reasons behind it.

In conclusion, it is clear that our humanitarian aid system needs some changes, but the basis of the humanitarian imperative is built on good motives. As Roberta Cohen said there is now a, “merging international responsibility to protect and assist persons within their own countries” (Cohen). I think that the humanitarian aid is a somewhat western concept, but people all around the world also have this need to get involved and offer aid to others. It is how we go about it and the way we involve ourselves in issues around the world that needs to be reflected on and hopefully improved.

This TedTalk describes what Erin Kilborn, a humanitarian and doctor, believes actually makes a humanitarian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFPB5qjhHgo

After Class Notes:

After our discussion in class about the humanitarian imperative, there were many other points that I hadn’t considered. The concept of mirror neurons was very interesting to me as I had never really heard of them prior to this class. It was interesting hearing about the biological drive that we have to help others. The social exchange theory was another concept that I thought was important when thinking about the humanitarian imperative. If humans cannot give without expecting something in return, what does that say about humanitarian aid. I thought it was interesting when thinking about foreign aid in the United States and the fact that we are giving our aid to the countries that we can get something back from, not those that are most needy.

Works Cited:

Being/Becoming a Global Citizen (SOC 376: 2-13)

Cole, Teju. “The White-Savior Industrial Complex.” The Atlantic, 21 Mar. 2012.

Cohen, Roberta. “Humanitarian Imperatives are Transforming Sovereighty.” Brookings, 1 Jan. 2008.

“UNICEF’s Humanitarian Principles.” UNICEF, July 2003,

What is the humanitarian imperative? In the Code of Conduct for the ICRC (International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement), the humanitarian imperative is defined as a fundamental humanitarian principle, “the right to receive humanitarian assistance, and to offer it”. To expand on this definition, I would say that the humanitarian imperative is more so an obligation that people naturally feel to help others around them.  This principle of the human imperative is fundamental to the growth and wellness of a society. With the natural instinct to help others when they are physically or emotionally unstable, individuals have created a system of checks and balances, which promotes a universal well being amongst people. The Red Cross has recognized that the instinct to help others exists in everyone, which has helped them endure in missions of disaster relief and humanitarian aid.  

The problem, is that we recognize there is a drive to eliminate inequality and human suffering, but we, the global north is unable to strategically plan how we can best help those suffering.  We are aware of what is needed at the moment, it’s visible in plain sight, but giving immediate support is a long term viable option. To tackle this issue, we must remove the associated power we hold when trying to provide aid and relief to others, and place ourselves on the same level with the people we are trying to help. One way that we can do this is by re-orienting the approach we use of capacity building.

“What if we re-oriented so-called “capacity building” approaches to be rooted in what grassroots groups often require most of us – resources, allies, solidarity, respect, celebration, collaboration, and encouragement?” (Jennifer Lenter).

Global northerners are often traveling to the global south to rebuild, and often arrive with an assertive power, that they assume they have over the people who live there.  Just because the global north may have access to a better living situations, or more complex institutions and resources, it should not be implied that they have the power to decide what would work best for another country.  This idea makes me think of the quote from Thomas Jefferson, “He who knows best knows how little he knows”. I’ve connected this to the negative aspect of global northerners, in how they are overly confident in themselves when traveling south due to their privilege at home.  They are confident that their decisions are better than those in the global south.

From personal experience, I have traveled to impoverished countries and really examined the surroundings, wondering why society is this way, but I would never feel that I have the power, without much interaction with the local people, to know what is best for them. My short durations of time in countries with extensive hardships and extremely low standards of living, has allowed me to see that individuals there comply with the human imperative, similarly to how we do in America.  The point that I have reached is that the human imperative is not solely an instinct that people with social and economic power can experience. This recognition of the human imperative actually being a universal instinct has ignited a feeling of connectedness between myself and individuals living in a less equitable situation. It has allowed me to appreciate the character, specifically the drive of the locals, which I think many global northerners have yet to see. I have seen than many less fortunate people who are likely to receive aid are often hardworking individuals who live a systematized lifestyle.  This aspect of systematic living is where I see the people themselves are capable and willing to fight for political change that would better their living situations. We must realize, we are not their only hope for change.

What I have been thinking about is how the humanitarian imperative, we defined in class as a “cultural universal”(SOC 371:2-13), actually varies depending on the ecosystem.  The community members I have engaged with in Nicaragua have demonstrated their involvement with the human imperative, which is in contrast with the imperative that global northerners experience.  To continue on the discussion of what the humanitarian imperative is, I would say that yes it is something that all humans feel, but global northerners and southerners experience it differently. A global northerner feels this response to help people that are in a worse off situation, where people in the global south actually want to engage with others in their community to grow together.

To comment on “What is the ‘humanitarian imperative’”, I agree that in the past, societies have structured their institutions around the bias of race, class and gender, contributing to a marginalized society.  These institutions may have changed overtime to be less bellitiling to members of society, but the nature of the institutions still hold a great influence today.  A quite simple form of this marginalization is in the educational systems, public versus private schooling. This variation in the schooling system has evoked societies based on class and prestige, discouraging authentic interaction.  What I am trying to say, is that these institutions structured around social biases, has led to the association of power with the human imperative, seen amongst people in the global north. Rather than empathizing with others, people begin to only empathize with people of who they associate themselves with.  So, to wrap up this thought, the human imperative varies amongst ecosystems, especially when humanitarian aid workers go to the global south driven by this feeling to give all of their assistance.

To conclude, the humanitarian imperative, is something that people all around the world witness, and feel. However, there is a distinction with how individuals feel toward others, depending on the society that they come from, and the values that exist there.  People from the global north experience this instinct to help others when they are suffering, but because they feel bad for them, automatically asserting power into the situation. My research and experience on the global south has led me to conclude that they too yearn to help others, however they moreso approach it as a collective whole, and encourage a community to work together to enhance a situation.

In class I was able to learn from others blog posts to expand upon my knowledge and opinion on the humanitarian imperative. Specifically, I realized that when speaking about the imperative we must acknowledge the unit of analysis, and I now see that I wrote my blog post in the perspective of microanalysis, thinking about an individual.  Additionally, we further discussed how the humanitarian imperative has a resonance amongst all people but the practice of it does not always happen in the best way possible.  To branch off of this, where I tried to explain how the global northerners act on the humanitarian imperative differently than the global south does, could be clarified with my new knowledge of the Social Exchange Theory. This theory discusses how people  give  with an expectation of a return, or thank you gift.  And I would connect this to say that I believe the global north is latched onto this idea in their everyday lives, and that it shows when they do become involved in humanitarian aid.  Whereas on the other hand, possibly due to their less developed living style, the people in the global south do not expect something in return by helping another, as it is a more accustomed part of their culture to do the right thing, and help others, without expecting a favor in return.

Works Cited:

Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. ICRC.org. https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-1067.pdf

Arcaro, Tom. What is the ‘humanitarian imperative’? 21 Mar. 2018, https://blogs.elon.edu/aidworkervoices/?p=985

Lentfer, Jennifer. “Two Ideas to Retire.” How Matters, 15 Mar. 2018, www.how-matters.org/2018/03/15/two-ideas-to-retire-empowerment-capacity-building/.

SOC371: 2-13  Class Google Document: The Human Imperative.

The humanitarian imperative. How does one begin to explain such a concept? Well, I’m going to try at least. The humanitarian imperative is, in my opinion, the unignorable urge for humans to help each other. Rooted inside of us is the need to help those we see in trouble. Certain societal factors have caused us to be able to turn off this urge, for example growing up I learned to ‘mind my business’ so when I would see a fight happening in the street I ignored it instead of stepping in. But, at the end of the day I truly believe that it is innately within humans to want to help each other. This humanitarian imperative is just another term to empathy. It is a large scale action due to the worldly socioeconomic disparities in the world. Where the problems lie with this term is how this empathetic need to help is played out. For example, when we view ourselves as the only way people in poor living conditions due to things like war (sometimes one’s that we caused ourselves) we are giving ourselves power over those people’s lives. Like Jennifer Lawfer said “[a]ny words or phrases like “empower” or “capacity building” that can contain, assume, uphold, or cover up a giver/receiver dynamic.” Applying the symbolic interaction theory as told by Mead we have given words meaning over time. The problem with this is we never really talk about language from a symbolic interactionist view point (Schwalbe, 198: 291). It is interesting that this hasn’t been explored much especially since it seems that language is the perfect example of symbolic interactionism. But, we have given meaning to the word empower and those meanings are mostly positive. Again, it all comes back to the execution of how we apply those words and their meanings to into action. We always talk about empowering people as if it is the only possible solution, and I too am guilty of this, without thinking of the implications that our words have on our actions. We consistently view these people as not able to help themselves therefore it is up to us to do this work. One of the problems I have with this is that we begin to view who we see as worthy as help. For example, we are willing to help Syrians by building transition camp sites for them to escape their war torn homes but reject their asylum applications when they try to come to the United States. We send missionary groups to places like Haiti but continue to ignore the water crisis in our own backyard of Flint, MI.

Expanding on this idea of picking and choosing who we give that aid to we must look at the societal identifiers, such as race, nationality, age, and class. These four identifiers, specifically, seem to play a big role in the humanitarian imperative; even more so the intersection of these identifiers plays a large role. We tend to have the most gut reaction to injustice when it is foreign brown children in a war torn country in the Global South. Because of this feeling I believe that the humanitarian imperative is mostly a Western perspective concept because of the power dynamics created by this imperative. The thing that solidifies this point of view for me in the word ‘imperative.’ Because we were lucky enough to be born into the socio-cultural status we were born in we have this guilt weighing on us to help those less fortunate than ourselves. It is one of the biggest reasons Elon University students are so eager to help the Alamance County area. But, with this is also the denial to admit that we are part of the problem. As Cole said “[t]here is an expectation that we can talk about sins but no one must be identified as a sinner,” (Cole, 2012). We constantly want to help fix the problem but in order to accurately assess the problem we have to look at where those problems developed. We don’t want to admit that the instability in the Middle East and the Global South is due to the interference from the West. Further, we feel that guilt goes away as soon as we help once. That is one of the reasons that the photo attached is so problematic. No one wants to notice the problems with them being a white person positing a picture with a little Black kid from Haiti along with the caption saying “I don’t know how these kids are so happy with so little but this week has taught me so much!!” As discussed briefly in class even these kind of photos perpetuate the power dynamics surrounded around aid work (SOC371: 2-13-19). We see our imperative of helping as the only possible solution for these people to live a better life. Looking at a macro-economic standpoint we place our own economic success globally as the standard for success everywhere. We forget to educate ourselves on their culture and assume that Western aid is the only aid (Howe, 2015 :33). This brings me back to the point of language. Whenever we raise money for aid we use the word ‘gift.’ Saying that helping these people is a ‘gift’ is saying ‘we are choosing to do this out of the goodness of our hearts and we just wanted to remind you that if we didn’t you would continue to live in the horrid conditions you do.’

The humanitarian imperative is not inherently a bad thing. It is just when we don’t drop our ethnocentric views that the problems begin to arise. We have to remember that cultures have their own identity and that the Western perspective is not the only perspective out there. Further, we must develop the language that does not create the power dynamics that currently exists such as First v Third world and calling aid ‘gifting.’ These problems may seem vast and impossible to fix but with just these first steps that we as a class are taking it is possible. No change was ever made over a day or even a year but that doesn’t mean we need to stop trying.

References

Arcaro, Tom. “The Humanitarian Imperative.” Class Discussion. Class Discussion, 13 Feb. 2019, Elon, NC.

Cole, Teju. “The White-Savior Industrial Complex.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 11 Jan. 2013, www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/the-white-savior-industrial-complex/254843/.

Howe, Lorien. The Problematic Nature of Humanitarian Aid. University of Colorado, Boulder , 2015.

Lentfer, Jennifer, et al. “Two Ideas to Retire.” How Matters, 16 Mar. 2018, www.how-matters.org/2018/03/15/two-ideas-to-retire-empowerment-capacity-building/.

Schwalbe, Michael L. “Language and the Self: An Expanded View from a Symbolic Interactionist Perspective.” Symbolic Interaction, vol. 6, no. 2, 1983, pp. 291–306. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/si.1983.6.2.291

The question of whether or not it is our duty to offer aid to those who are suffering is one that I would’ve said quickly agreed with and not thought twice about before taking part in some of the discussions in this class. When asked if we should help others, most people will automatically say yes. However, the humanitarian imperative question is one that is complex and does not have one correct answer, as frustrating as that is. As humans it is in our nature to help those around us, but at what point does offering aid do more harm than good?

The idea of the humanitarian imperative reflects our empathetic nature as humans. The ability to empathize with others makes us truly human—for instance if we were to walk past someone who had just been assaulted we would see their pain and instantly offer our help. Practically every organized religion stresses the idea of helping others and being selfless. Due to this, many organized religious groups engage in this concept of “voluntourism” and emphasize the importance of giving back to struggling countries. The idea of empathy is not one that is solely characterized by Western values, rather it is something that transcends borders and sparks something within all of us to aid others (Arcaro). The U.S. is fortunate enough to have the resources available to offer aid to struggling people, but empathy is one that characterizes all of us despite our ability to act on it.

Despite the intention of humanitarian aid being pure, are we really helping others in a completely unbiased manner? Whenever we engage with people who have a different set of values, practices, and beliefs than us, there is a degree of marginalization that can occur either directly or indirectly. Nowadays, donors in a given area can exceed 200, but the uncoordinated and corrupt nature of humanitarian aid itself can complicate the delivery and the quality of the aid as well, (Polman). The U.S. as a world leader has typically had the mindset that it is our responsibility to help those who are struggling and intervene. Historically, the U.S. has also maintained this mindset. Going back to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a common standard of achievements for all people was set, stating that “inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, (“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights”). However, with desire to aid others also comes with an ethnocentric mind. As we discussed in class, people in power choose to further whichever economic and political systems keep them in power, (SOC371:2-13). With that comes racism, sexism, and classism. Thus, it is virtually impossible for these structures, which have been embedded with these biases, to offer pure aid without ethnocentrism seeping in (Arcaro).

We need to refrain from put our idea of “progress” ahead of people’s own ideas for development and transformation, (Lentfer). While it may be our “duty” to offer aid to others, there is a difference between contributing to the development of the country based off of their specific needs and in their cultural context, and implementing what we think is best. Abu-Sada dives into this idea and emphasizes that what “we” experience is not what “they” experience, (188).

There is a sense of irony in the fact that in a system which at its core was built on a sense of empathy and desire to give all people a sense of security and justice can contain marginalization and corruption. Evidence of this can be seen in in Oxfam’s #Metoo scandal. Syrian women disclosed that sexual exploitation or abuse and women has largely been ignored, mostly due to the fact that there are little to no legal repercussions for sexually assaulting a woman in in a warzone, (Powell). This abuse was so widespread that some women chose to forego aid in fear of a tarnished reputation. This is just one example of the corruption and marginalization that seeps into humanitarian aid and although this specific issue was addressed, it only highlights a deep-rooted sense of ethnocentrism.

There is no question that our humanitarian aid system is in need of reform. Although it is virtually impossible to achieve a system of aid that is free from marginalization, we need to realize that just because we are offering aid doesn’t mean that this aid is necessarily effective in relieving suffering. To acknowledge that humanitarian aid is an unsolvable problem will only act as a disservice to the host country and to those who do contribute resources and skills that improve the quality of life for struggling people, (Kopinak). While there is no one correct answer to the question of how to fix this system, it is important to recognize that it is ever-changing and there may not be a clear end-goal. Rather, we must recognize the importance of the Human Declaration of Rights and as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. paraphrased, the “arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

This Ted Talk talks about the paradox of humanitarian aid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J45cWdDEbm0

Thoughts after last class:

I thought that our discussions last class about the different perspectives on the humanitarian imperative were very eye opening. What really stuck out to me after hearing it in class and reading about it in Dr. Arcaro’s blog post was the concept of mirror neurons. The concept of empathy intrigues me deeply so acknowledging the biology behind why we feel this towards other people really enhanced my understanding of aid. We are driven by a desire to help others and feel for those around us. However, another key point I took away is this idea that as humans, we cannot give to others purely. Humans are constantly monitoring interactions and evaluating what they can get out of it. This is why the humanitarian aid sector has so much corruption and marginalization embedded, because we cannot truly give to these struggling people without at least a little part of us analyzing how it can also benefit us.

Abu-Sada, Caroline, editor. In the Eyes of Others: How People in Crises Perceive Humanitarian Aid. Editions Antipodes, 2012.

Arcaro, Tom. What is the ‘humanitarian imperative’? 21 Mar. 2018, https://blogs.elon.edu/aidworkervoices/?p=985

Kopinak, Janice. “Humanitarian Aid: Are Effectiveness and Sustainability Impossible Dreams?” The Journal of Humanitarian Assistance, 13 Mar. 2013.

Lentfer, Jennifer. “Two Ideas to Retire.” How Matters, 15 Mar. 2018, www.how-matters.org/2018/03/15/two-ideas-to-retire-empowerment-capacity-building/.

Powell, Catherine. “#MeToo Hits the Humanitarian Aid Sector: Time to Close the Accountability Gap.” Council on Foreign Relations, 27 Mar. 2018, www.cfr.org/blog/metoo-hits-humanitarian-aid-sector-time-close-accountability-gap.

United Nations. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

The Humanitarian Imperative is an interesting problem to address based off of the countless number of issues surrounding humanitarian aid as a whole in regards to sex, gender, race, financial health, and political factors. As humans, through our social interactions, we feel similar to those who are around us as defined by the new understanding of mirror neurons. In an article by J.M. Kilner and R.N. Lemon, they define the new discovery of mirror neurons as, “a class of neuron that modulate their activity both when an individual executes a specific motor act and when they observe the same or similar act performed by another individual” (Lemon Kilner). This discovery helps us to understand the perspective in regards to why the humanitarian imperative exists primarily in the context of Western culture. The countless number of students, church members, and various groups who spend a week in a 3rd world country providing aid and then vacationing the week after simply because of a natural disaster or lack of necessary resources to live in a certain community from either war, economic turmoil, or corrupt government systems in the given country supports the mirror neuron theory in regards to the humanitarian imperative. In regards to race and gender, the downfall of ethnocentrism affects us all. There is an inherent correlation between racism and ethnocentrism that exists within the humanitarian imperative causing this gap between the necessary aid provided in areas to which it is needed and when it’s simply not due to a lack of sensitivity for one’s cultural perspectives.

Building off of the idea that providing aid through NGO’s and various organizations catered towards providing humanitarian relief is not fixing the issue of those affected but rather causing another issue to arise is a serious consideration under the humanitarian imperative. When looking at Western Civilizations pure amount of wealth both institutionally and individually there is a clear monetary solution to the issue. However, by simply donating money how do we truly know that the proper aid in regards to certain cultural, racial, and religious norms to which each human is entitled too. To clarify, in class we watched the satirical youtube clip of the man on the beach attempting to “make a difference” by throwing starfish which had washed up on the beach back into the ocean but despite this seemingly simple task he ends up killing more starfish than saving. The video highlights the argument that humanitarian aid needs to be carried out in a process that does not inherently utilize the scope of ethnocentrism and does more help than harm. But in the context of this paradox can we truly help all those in need and furthermore will our existence as global citizens ever reach the point to which global aid can be provided in a proper and non-institutionalized form?

In regards to my standing as a senior graduating in the Spring this semester the pressure to find a job at a respected and impressive corporation is very evident. These corporations are often multi-national operating and provide various dedications to corporate social responsibility. In an article from the Financial Times, they reported, “US and UK companies in the Fortune Global 500 spend $15.2bn a year on corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities, according to the first report to quantify this spending” (Alison Smith). The astounding amount of money to which large firms are putting towards corporate social responsibility is uplifting compared to the total amount of money needed versus raised for global humanitarian assistance. The value from the Financial Times is reported from 2014 and, “$25.3 billion was needed for all humanitarian efforts in 2013, of which $12 billion was raised” (Class Google Doc). The difference between the amount raised and the amount donated towards corporate social responsibility highlights the humanitarian imperative in regards to organizations and corporations to which I’ve been a part of. Through my internship, we provided aid to a local elderly home for Dementia and Alzheimer’s patients. During the experience, it was very evident that we had no qualifications to actually help or handle these people. Although the situation is not similar in physical context toward humanitarian aid, the principle of this imperative of simply helping to help is highly evident and exhibits the humanitarian imperative in a Westernized context.

After Class Notes:

After our discussion in class several of the topics, we addressed raised new questions in regards to the humanitarian imperative. Specifically, the conversation of the Good Samaritan Law brings a large question to humanitarian aid. Are we obligated to provide aid to others in need and if so to what extent due to the law pertaining to life or death situations? Also is there a dual obligation to comply to this no matter the context or situation of ones own life?

Works Cited

Kilner, J M and R N Lemon. “What we know currently about mirror neurons”Current biology : CB vol. 23,23 (2013): R1057-62.

Class Google Doc: Feb 13th

Starfish Humanitarian Aid Satire – Youtube

Da’s Blog Post: What is the ‘humanitarian imperative’? https://blogs.elon.edu/aidworkervoices/?p=985

Smith, Alison. “Subscribe to the FT to Read: Financial Times Fortune 500 Companies Spend More than $15bn on Corporate Responsibility.” Financial Times, Financial Times, www.ft.com/content/95239a6e-4fe0-11e4-a0a4-00144feab7de.

The Humanitarian Imperative

Prompt  

Warning:  Difficulty level  = high
For this post I ask you to define, discuss, and critique the ‘humanitarian imperative’, making a special effort to do so through the lens of race, class, gender, and other sources of privilege and marginalization.

Some questions to consider might include

• What is the ‘humanitarian imperative’?
• To what extent is the ‘humanitarian imperative’ solely a Western concept?
• How is our natural human empathy-and the impulse to act on same- expressed in various contexts and cultures?
• How is our empathy connected with the concept of the humanitarian imperative?
• Historically, to what degree is the articulation by the aid sector of the humanitarian imperative inherently biased by race, class, gender, and other sources of privilege and marginalization?
• At the present, to what degree is the articulation by the aid sector of the humanitarian imperative inherently biased by race, class, gender, and other sources of privilege and marginalization?
• As evidenced in their mission statement and/or by their actions, how is the ‘humanitarian imperative’ articulated in the various organizations that you belong to at Elon or elsewhere?

Please make use of at least some of  the following in your response:

• Two ideas to retire
• The White-Savior Industrial Complex
• The Crisis Caravan
• Voluntourism in Amman?
• A Memory of Solferino 
• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• This source may be very valuable and we will use it in class in several ways.
• Any of the blog posts we talked about this week and any others you read on blogs.elon.edu/aidworkervoices

Rubric:

Please note rubric changes and additions

• Due by midnight Sunday, Feb.17th.
• Late posts will be downgraded at least one letter grade.
• Comments to at least three colleague’s posts by Feb. 18th by 10:00PM EST.
• At least four citations: at least one from text and/or other assigned reading, at least two from outside academic sources, and one citation of class lecture/discussion.  Note:  you are to read/watch/listen to all of the material in the hyperlinks in the parent post above; your contact with the material should be apparent in your post.  Reference class lecture/discussion is this form (SOC371:3-27) i.e., course number and date.
• List references at the bottom of the page (MLA format).
• At least one photo and/or video link appropriate to and enhancing the content of your post.
• Minimum 0f 700 words (excluding references).
• Grade will be based on quality and quantity of response to the post prompt including adherence to the above benchmarks.
• Keep in mind that you are writing for a broad audience that is educated and interested in this topic; infuse your post with the sociology you are learning/have learned in a non-jargonistic manner

As a shorthand for the longer, more detailed grading rubric above this SOC summary may be useful.

• S = demonstration of understanding and application of sociological concepts, theories, etc. germane to the topic, especially those taking about in the text and in class
• O = organization and structure overall; flow of ideas, appropriate and contextualized use of images and videos, proper documentation of sources
• C = analytical creativity; going beyond obvious restatement or simple examples and pushing boundaries of thought and perspective; finding outside academic sources beyond the obvious

Please check Assignments/Assignment 3 before you Publish.