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”
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
5 Comments
I appreciate the simplicity of your definition for the Humanitarian Imperative. Yet I would argue that such a definition brings with it so many questions it becomes impossible to actually apply. If the imperative is “our role in the global community to provide aid to those suffering” we must consider who suffering, to what degree, do others consider it equally as such, and should we all be held to the same standard obligation if we do not agree on such technicalities. I dont say this to disagree with you- I am only trying to explain that there is so much more that goes into the execution of such a simple idea.
I really enjoyed reading your post! You bring up a lot of great points. I liked that you brought up the fact that we have a monumental effect on others even if we don’t realize it. In everything we do, we are affecting someone, somewhere. I also agree that by making the humanitarian imperative seem so big and unattainable, people will be discouraged from trying to fix it. While the industry needs some serious policy and structural changes and the task is daunting, this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
I think overall you have an amazing post! I think that you start off really strongly in asserting that empathy can be situational and is not always acted upon because in some instances, people look out for themselves first and foremost. Along with this, you paint a really compelling image of what the world should ideally look like if everyone were practicing constant, altruistic empathy. You further develop this when you reword the famous quote by MLK, I think that really gets to the heart of the purpose behind the aid sector, ensuring everyone’s dignity in whatever way that may look. Finally, I appreciated how you tied everything together in the end with a sort of call to action that everyone can further the humanitarian imperative by being empathetic and caring for others in our everyday lives; this reminded me a lot of the starfish story we talked about in class a few days ago!
I like how you gave your own definition of the humanitarian imperative, and gave a simple definition. I agree with your definition of maintaining the dignity and safety of one another. I do think that it was interesting how you asserted that people should not be expected to rely on their natural empathy, and instead the opposite. I had argued in my blog post that human empathy was a natural emotion that most of us all have and will use. I think it is interesting reading your post, as we did have many similar ideas but also argued certain concepts differently.
I agree with your assertion that simply to possess empathy, is not enough to accurately deconstruct the idea of the humanitarian imperative. In my post, I argued that although empathy is natural, so are characteristics such as selfishness. So it is interesting that you would contest that people should be expected to choose money, power, and prominence over their “natural impulse”. I don’t disagree, but perhaps the reasons this is true is because the pursuit of those material desires is also natural. I also think its interesting that you chose to describe these decisions are a product of long standing social structures. Overall, your post was very well argued and I think we are more or less on the same page, attacking the idea from different perspectives.