Being/Becoming Global Citizen

Assignment 6

By srobertson8 | Published May 20, 2019

Reading Emergency Sex (and Other Desperate Measures) was extremely eye-opening. There is something so revealing about hearing a first hand account of what happened to someone, as opposed to hearing academic jargon about it.

Ken’s journey was the key story, in my opinion, in understanding the psychology behind humanitarian aid work. He came into the humanitarian sector with preconceived notions, an a lot of privilege, thinking he could save the world. He was soon humbled as he realized that only one person can do so much.

As Ken starts experiencing violence and comes to the realization of the true reality of humanitarian aid work, I can’t help but noticing the similarities between his experiences and that of our Skype guests. This sense of hope that Ken had at the beginning of the book slowly starts eroding as he experiences the violence and realities of humanitarian aid. Much like Genevieve, who was very optimistic but soon was slapped in the face by reality, the realities of the humanitarian aid sector can not only be more than one bargained for, but also psychologically damaging. Ken explains that he was “hell-bent on being an effective humanitarian in Cambodia and Somalia” but now his “naïve fog” is finally lifting (219).

Ken’s story actually perfectly aligned with the “Mission, Mercenary, Mystic, Misfit” concept. Which is basically just a theoretical framework for how humanitarian aid workers mentally navigate through the sector.  This idea of a “moral career” was presented by Erving Goffman. Ken starts out wanting to save the world with very grandiose ideas. Next, after having a traumatizing experience in Somalia, he becomes the mercenary. He then goes to Rwanda, very aware of what happened to him psychologically in Somalia and it much more aware of the challenges that face the humanitarian aid sector. He eventually becomes the misfit finally when he is looking for an escape route. The entire process disillusioned Ken like so many of our Skype guests and other account we have heard, however, this story particularly resonated with me because of the form in which the story was presented. I think all majors  in college should be required to read this book, because the sociological implications are so important and can be applied to so many different disciplines. We also read this around the time in the course when I started to realize how little people are really educated about this sector (even beginning aid workers can be misinformed about the nature of the sector) and what aid workers truly have to deal with. It troubles me that there is not more spotlight on the journey’s of aid workers.

 

Posted in Assignment 6 | Comments Off on Assignment 6

Assignment 5

By srobertson8 | Published May 20, 2019

ECHO is a European, faith-based humanitarian aid organization that works all across the globe to eliminate suffering. They have a particularly strong focus on agriculture and teaching the affected communities how to make food for themselves and to be industrious so that they can eventually become independent of the aid organizations and maintain dignity by making a life for themselves. In their words, “The urban poor face high prices and low incomes, making nutritious food unattainable. Rural families are often malnourished because of a lack of diverse nutrients in their diets, if they have enough to eat at all. In both cases, children suffer the most. We gather solutions from around the world that are solving hunger problems and disseminate them to our active network. These solutions promote sustainable farming techniques, nutritional plants, and appropriate technologies. They are well tested and proven to be successful over and over again.”

Essentially, they work to help those who are teaching farmers around the world know how to be more effective  in producing enough to meet the needs of their families and their communities. They in turn teach others and the ECHO effect continues.

One major aspect of the company that I like it that they are one of the organizations that I noticed has a particular investment in maintaining the cultural and spiritual aspects of the communities they work with. This is very important to me since we’ve been learning so much in class about the harm that some aid organizations do to the cultures in the places they operate in. Especially with the White Savior Complex always present, it was comforting to discover that they do all they can to gather information about the culture they are about to enter and perform tasks that they affected community has actually approved and asked for. This maintains and maximizes dignity.

Although ECHO is a faith-based organization that requires its aid workers to sign a pledge stating that they have given their lives to Christ, they are not extremely proselytizing. I like this because I believe the humanitarian imperative is for all people of all religions or lack thereof. With that being said, as a Christian, I also believe that Christ has called us to serve everyone, not just Christians. And exploiting a vulnerable population by making them choose a religion in exchange for food is immoral and not at all Christ-like.

It’s important to note that they do try to make ties to churches in the communities that they serve and religion is heavily influencing what they do and their mission, they do read the Bible with the affected groups as a means of comfort and consolation, but never for conversion purposes.

 

I’ve attached a link of a video on their site:

https://www.echonet.org/echo-videos/the-power-of-information-rod-sebastian

Posted in Assignment 5 | Comments Off on Assignment 5

Assignment 2

By srobertson8 | Published May 20, 2019

It has become increasingly “trendy” to refer to ourselves as global citizens, but do we really embody the responsibilities that come with that title? Do we even know what it really means to be a global citizen? Before this course, I thought I was a global citizen: simply someone that cared about the rights and dignity of all people and advocated for human rights to be upheld. However, this is only scratching the surface of what it means to be a global citizen. Being a global citizen is rooted in ACTION, not beliefs. I had a great BELIEF system that involved me advocating for disenfranchising power structures to be taken down. However, I never had any ACTION behind it. Being a global citizen not only involves being a humanitarian (donating to charities, helping those with depleted resources, etc.) But it also involves making humanitarianism actually WORK.  The humanitarian aid sector has become awash of white savior complexes and people joining as part of a trend or trying to “find themselves.” This results in the affected communities needs not being met, and the prolonging of suffering. What needs to be done to be a true GLOBAL citizen, is for us to toss our preconceived ideas of right and wrong out the window and listen to HEAR the needs and concerns of this entirely different culture, religion, race of people.

 

Many of the issues that create the White Savior Complex have to do with the issue of neoliberalism. The conflict theory perspective explains how the rush for resources and the winner-loser system we have in America fosters an environment where true global citizenship cannot exist. Wealth is unevenly distributed, favoring the rich, and that extends globally as the rich countries increase their wealth while poor nations often maintain or delve deeper into poverty. This does not only exist in America, this exists GLOBALLY.

 

So what can we do to fix or even work around these barriers to global citizenship? How can we usurp the White Savior Complex? In the case of the humanitarian aid sector, one suggestion I would make would be to really re-shape the way in which aid workers enter communities. This might not seem important, but from our Skype guests and our readings in the class, I’ve come to understand that a certain level of cultural congruence is necessary for the affected community to trust the aid workers. And trust is far more important than many of us realize when it comes to global citizenship. In this class we have talked a lot about maintaining the dignity of the affected community, and I feel that establishing trust from the beginning when the aid organizations first enter the area, is essential to the dignity of the vulnerable population. In order to do this, I think NGO’s and INGO’s should have a contact within the group who can help to assimilate them into the culture and help them build relationships with the members of the community. Another important suggestion would be to consult the affected communities during every step of the aid process, from determining the location of the health clinic to deciding the types of medicines offered. They should not simply be NOTIFIED, they should be CONSULTED (i.e. asked for their opinion) which would not only maximize trust and dignity but also make for a much more effective and productive use of the donors’ money. In order for aid to be successful it must be in line with the communities wants and needs. This is a concept that is grossly missed in the aid community and it is one that someone with White Savior Complex has yet to understand. I want to be clear that White Savior Complex is not simply reserved for those who are evil or racist. People can be products of White Savior Complex due to a simple lack of understanding or an eagerness to help others so much so that you are telling them what would be good for them.

 

Now that I have talked about what it means to be a global citizen as it pertains to humanitarian aid work, I want to briefly applies these sociological theories to the everyday person who is not a humanitarian aid worker. How can we be global citizens in our everyday lives? The answer is really simple. As David Jefferess puts it, “Global citizenship is a way of understanding one’s place in the world, and valuing differences.” My interpretation of that quote is essentially understanding that we are all responsible for the well being of each other. When we can breakout of our ethnocentric, symbolic interactionist lens & understand that each of our places on this earth is distinctly different but equally valuable, we will suddenly find it easy to find day to day, simple ways to fulfill the humanitarian imperative & be a global citizen.

Posted in Assignment 2 | Comments Off on Assignment 2

PSA: Micro- and Macro- Aggressions, and How They Really Hurt People––Everyone, in fact.

By Katherine Evans | Published May 20, 2019

To produce this PSA, three artists/superheroes/global citizens/woke ladies, wrote, brainstormed, directed, filmed, and compiled this Public Safety Announcement. We believe it speaks to everyone’s reality (stereotypes are a thing for a reason, and nobody is immune). We wanted to capture that visceral, gut reaction, and I believe, we succeed. As a group, we bounced ideas off of each other, and we captured the gut reaction of each, willing participant. While each person said not more than two words, their reactions and facial expressions said it all. We tried to create this PSA, with everyone in mind, as a reminder to the world, that we are all the same, deep down, regardless of color, class, or creed. We are all global citizens, we just have to wake the fuck up.

 

Video:

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on PSA: Micro- and Macro- Aggressions, and How They Really Hurt People––Everyone, in fact.

My shortest final ever

By Katherine Evans | Published May 19, 2019

Yes Katherine Evans

Thomas Arcaro

Being and Becoming a Global Citizen

May 17th, 2019

The Final Blog Post: My Final Blog Post

To begin my very last post––EVER––at Elon University, for my favorite Professor, I would like to start, by saying, “Thank You!” Now that we have that out of the way, I’m gonna get a little bit sappy, before I discuss the nitty-gritty stuff I learned this semester, and over the past four years as a Sociology Major, who, was forced to take other Liberal Arts Classes (I’m so glad I did! I’m so much more well-rounded!). Over the past four years, I have learned more than I would like to know regarding pain, pleasure, evil, and good. I have learned that we live in a society, and a world, crafted by dead white guys, and, currently, living white guys. I have learned that humans are social species, with many sociological a priori baked into our lives: race, gender, sex, sexuality, religion, wealth and power structures, and statuses, to name a few. Furthermore, humans are a social species, who, quite literally live in their own heads. According to Cooley––and Durkheim and Goffman––we are beings that imagine how others see us, and, then, act accordingly: The Looking-Glass Self. Furthermore, too many of the dead white guys mentioned the term “Anomie,” or deathly loneliness. This kind of pain stems from lack of connection, and isolation (we are a social species; mirror neurons), dehumanization, neoliberalism, capitalism, bureaucracy, and the Iron Cage of Rationality. In fact, the way we (by “we,” I mean WHITE MEN) have designed our culture, and our world, actually makes us depressed and suicidal (Think Putnam’s Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community). So, why then, do we do it? Honestly, because humans are lazy, shy away from real pain, bottle their emotions, and seek gratification and happiness in the physical, ignoring their biological real need for love and affection (Think Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business). And, at the end of the day, everything we have created is replicated over and over: ideas, things, stuff, memes, clothing, art, food/cuisine, etc. This idea of a cultural replicator “gene,” is what Richard Dawkins refers to as a “meme,” in his book, The Selfish Gene. So, which of the dead white guys is right? Well, none of them, completely. But, on a more optimistic note, all of them, in different ways. Without Marx, Weber, Durkheim, Mead, Freud, Nietzsche, modern Sociology––the most important topic one can study, because we are studying ourselves, and how we work––would not exist.

I’m going to try to keep this as long as it needs to be, but we all know I have a “way with words.” Throughout the Semester, we discussed many wonderful and horrific topics. In great detail, and through candid discussion, we learned about the genocide in Rwanda, the Dunant vs. Nightingale debate, sociological, or, “baked-in,” facets of a culture, problems with bureaucracy (in the office vs. on the ground), when the aid sector is saturated with need, and, also got to speak with literal superheroes over skype. While I would love to sit here for the full three hours and drag out this post, I’m going to keep this short, and sweet, for once, and discuss the prompt topics that are important to me.

First, “How have you changed this semester? How are your thoughts different?” To answer, I will say, that I change, a lot, each day, without fail. It was ironic that as we were discussing the hellish conditions, that other humans are experiencing, across the globe, while I was also going through hell. While different, but both terrible, I felt kinship with those struggling. I felt I was peering into the souls of these humans: maybe it was the teaching style :-). I felt it was necessary for me to see those images, hear those cries, and tales of horror, just, so, I can do something about it (And I will, I promise).

The second, and, final topic is the Skype talks we had throughout the Semester. I’ve always hated Skype…until this class! It was so validating, fascinating, and just fucking cool to talk to actual Aid Workers! You never see that! They are literal superheroes! While, clearly, Aid Workers are trying to help and make a difference, that isn’t always the case, although, sometimes it is. Anyways, I loved hearing their real, raw, and candid responses. They did not sugarcoat it for us privileged, Elon Kids, and boy, I was thrilled! You truly can’t learn if you choose to be ignorant. Anyways, I felt a kinship to each superhero. In fact,  aid workers are held to a high standard, both in the office, and on the ground. Additionally, they are expected to provide light, while absorbing insurmountable amounts of darkness, despair, pain, and destruction. Aid Workers are empaths, like me, and we, will keep saving others, as long as we have out health, our strength, and our will.

 

Posted in Final, Uncategorized | Comments Off on My shortest final ever

SOC – Final

By tdavy | Published May 17, 2019

Now that we are at the end of the semester, summarize the differences between how the late January ‘you’ and the end-or-semester ‘you’ would define the ‘humanitarian imperative.’ The title of this course is ‘Being and Becoming a Global Citizen’. Summarize the differences between how the late January ‘you’ and the end-or-semester ‘you’ would define ‘global citizen.’

I think the best way to describe January T’keya is as a bit more naive version of me today. I wasn’t ignorant to the fact that people in all facets of all industries abuse power and resources, that some people do humanitarian work for a millisecond because it is a great application enhancer, or even that workers can develop emotional and psychological trauma from their experiences. I’m a bit of a pessimist anyway. Even still, I think the aid sector can be a bit more nefarious than I would’ve even speculated initially. We discussed ways in which corruption seeps into the sector at the large corporation and even governmental level, but I was more surprised by things like child-sex workers and the economic benefit of a prolonged humanitarian crisis. The thought of aid with intention bothers and saddens me because I want to think of aid work as selfless acts where those “white-saviors” and “saviors” in general are not only holding disheveled brown and black children, but they are actually there because those children and their families need help and they are doing the most to do so. Not at all to say many many humanitarians do this, which was encouraging as some form of still kindness exists in the world. I guess, it just hurt to find out that humanitarian aid work is a business, just like every other industry.
I may have be disillusioned in thinking only those really, really kind hearted folk out there, are trekking across the world with biker backpacks and good intentions, while living in poverty-afflicted areas and working effortlessly to get solutions implemented, rather than just sustain a problem. I refer back to Romeo Dallaire’s book, Shake Hands With the Devil a lot now, in part, because I was utterly disgusted with the lack of humanitarian response once the crisis began in Rwanda. I wondered where were all those well-intentioned humanitarian workers, but then I realized, most of them chose to stay on the ground while others fled. I think I tend to think of aid work a bit more now as that small infantry of soldiers who stayed and persisted and helped as many people as they could, while others (who may or may not be the majority) have the title without necessarily being true to its intent.
Sorry to say Arcaro, but I’m much more skeptical after concluding this course and I’m giving aid organizations more of the side-eye, but that’s beneficial too because it has made me more wary of putting my resources and money behind agencies who I have not done extensive research on, whose statistics and implementation plans I can see, and whose methods I agree with. I think of my research on MSF and how they do such great work and are able to provide detailed reports of who needs aid, what needs resources and how they plan on achieving set goals. In turn, I am less triggered by emotive imagery, like poverty porn, and more interested in how these agencies are actually helping. Coming into this course, I thought being a global citizen was being more so respectful to outside cultures, reveling in our differences and similarities, and extending a hand to anyone regardless of their affiliations. I still believe this, even though I still can’t give you a Merriam Webster definition on what the humanitarian imperative is (I don’t really think anyone can simplify it that much), but I can appreciate that being a humanitarian includes so much more that I realized. Both negative and positive.

 

You were each asked to blog and present about a major humanitarian crisis, and as a class we learned a great deal about Yemen, Syria, and Venezuela, for example. Reflecting on what you and your classmates wrote and what we discussed in class, define and discuss the so-called Dunant versus Nightingale debate and how it applies to any of the crises we covered.

The Dunant versus Nightingale debate related back to what we started off this course discussing. We viewed that starfish video where this seemingly good samaritan was trying to save dozens of starfish by throwing them back into the sea. Instead, he ended up killing them in arguably worse ways than if they were to have died on the beach. Throughout this course, this idea has been present on my mind that even with the best of intentions, humanitarian aid is not always helpful. Or better yet, aid can prolong harm and even do more harm than good. Red Cross founder, Henry Dunant, had the idea of volunteers providing aid where the necessity was seen, which is an admirable position that seems almost selfless. That someone would give of themselves when others were in need, that someone wouldn’t judge a person based on the restricting barriers society applies, but recognize them as human being in need, or that someone could give without anticipated reciprocation.
You would think that if we all followed this theoretical perspective, there wouldn’t be was and genocides in the world, but that’s not the case. I read about the refugee crisis in Cox’s Bazar and the almost 1 million people who fled their homes due to an attempted genocide and also we thoroughly discussed the Rwandan genocide where 800,000 people were slaughtered in only a few days. Dunant’s response would of course be to assist if we can and provide care from neutral standards and I would say I still agree, even reflecting on all we’ve discussed this semester and how shameful the humanitarian sector can be at times. But, both J and Genevieve had similar sentiments that the work is not a vacation, it’s not easy or pleasurable most of the time and you will probably experience some form of atrocity that will damage you psychologically, but it’s a necessary work because there are hundreds of thousands of people being assisted, to counteract the negative components and drawbacks.
When we got introduced to the way Florence Nightingale thought about aid work, I have to say, I was mind blown. The idea that our prolonged presence in a suffering area will only prolong the atrocities more was something I almost didn’t want to agree with, but how could I not. I thought about this neutral component that agencies, like MSF, abide by where no matter who you are, you get aid if you need it. That’s a phenomenal sentiment… however, if you save the life of a terrorist who will then proceed to take dozen more lives, did you play a part in it? Yes? No? Maybe? It’s hard to think of a clear answer. On the flip side, who are you to deny anyone anything when your sole purpose is to serve the afflicted and improve their faulty infrastructures? It’s almost like a double-edged sword because if it is at the core of your ethics to be of service to others, is it then morally wrong to sit aside, knowing what will take place? I hated thinking about it because I felt hypocritical, but I guess that’s how humanitarian aid can be sometimes. The “saviors” who are there to help, but end up extending the problem. That’s a hard place to be.
Ultimately, I agree with Nightingale because when humanitarians act as intermediaries, they stall the “end” of whatever battle is being faced. That may be one side killing all others, that may mean assassinations and vile acts, but they won’t likely last too long. I think of the book Shake Hands with the Devil by Romeo Dallaire and how there was literally a mass slaughter over the course of 100 days. A terrible and heartbreaking event that was hard to even read about. I wonder though, if the event would have lasted years if there were aid workers and military who stayed. No matter what though, I lean more towards Dunant’s way of thinking. I think it may be worse to watch idly as the world goes to hell.

Posted in Final, Final | Comments Off on SOC – Final

Final blog post

By jvaughn5 | Published May 17, 2019

 

 

  • You were each asked to blog and present about a major humanitarian crisis, and as a class we learned a great deal about Yemen, Syria, and Venezuela, for example. Reflecting on what you and your classmates wrote and what we discussed in class, define and discuss the so-called Dunant versus Nightingale debate and how it applies to any of the crises we covered.

 

 

It was really hard to not get a nihilistic viewpoint on life after this class. Learning about all the atrocities going on in the world and how complicated they are made me feel utterly helpless in any of the situations and crises that we have talked about this semester. But, there are to humanitarians that help decide which side we may fall on on how to help: Nightingale and Dunant. Henry Dunant, the founder of the Red Cross, is on the side of help everyone no matter what. The core principles of the Red Cross are to remain impartial and neutral in different conflicts and to provide to anyone who may need it (Red Cross, 1979). Nightingale is more of the approach of we should use aid work for advocacy and that it is irresponsible to remain apolitical in situation that have a clear right and wrong (Selanders & Crane, 2012).

While both of these people have done incredible things for the aid sectors as well as establishing known organizations their approaches are rather different and bring up a heated debate about aid work: should it be apolitical or should we pick sides? If we were to take the Dunant approach then the answer is that we should be apolitical. Imagining a group of aid workers driving in a car come across a wounded soldier they would be obligated to help them whether they found out this soldier was actually of the side of the part oppressing the citizens or not. What this would do is make this soldier well enough to go back into battle and could therefore kill more innocent people. To the Red Cross and Dunant this is merely a side effect but should not interfere with their work. There is research on the impact of this and proof that apolitical aid work sometimes provides assistance to opposing sides of a war (Polman, 2010: 104). By remaining neutral in conflict zones is turning “the aid industry […] into a potentially lethal force the belligerents need to enlist,” (Polman, 2010: 105). This goes to show that remaining apolitical in the aid world, especially in conflict zones just makes us complicit to other humanitarian crises going on. For example, in Yemen, there are millions of displaced people and even more in need of assistance in the country due to the civil war (Global Conflict Tracker, 2019). While the situation is tense different people around the world have the tools to help end or at least calm down the conflict. With the Dunant approach, this is not our place. If this was something I was just seeing on the news then I would agree with this. But, we are already a part of conflict by going in to provide aid in the first place. By taking the Dunant approach, this just provides aid to all and prolong the conflict in the end therefore ,inadvertently, causing more deaths.

On the other end is the Nightingale approach which is based in advocacy and activism. Nightingale was someone who was all about action and not just words; she never explicitly said that she was in the nursing field to increase advocacy for patients and nurses alike but she showed it through her actions (Selanders & Crane, 2012). In this regard, when looking at the aid sector it means we need  to be advocates for patients around the world. If aid workers were to see a sudden influx of children with wounds from bombs then instead of just treating their wounds and continuing on they may fight for the war to end that is causing these children to become victims. If the tools, resources, and knowledge are there then why not do something with it? The thing about advocacy is that it requires a level of understanding about various systems. We cannot aim to change a system that we don’t know the first thing about. So, to have an aid organization that is aimed at advocacy means that that organization is taking the time to understand the dynamics of a situation and is thinking creatively about to help. It also means that they understand that change, at the end of the day, has to come from within and that it is not up to them to stage a coup to fix things. In the case of Somalia, the US had had such a presence that they understood the working of the country, and their role in it, that when it was time to help rebuild a stable country they had the knowledge and passion to make it work (Cain, Postlewait, & Thomson, 1991: p 96). With the Nightingale approach this was the appropriate next step: advocacy for those still living in bad conditions from the aftermath of the conflict in the area. Providing food and water and the occasionally medical care for them was not enough. The aid workers in the area knew that the people needed the governmental aid and the infrastructure to make sure once the aid workers left that the work would continue. Aid work goes beyond just that of delivering resources; if someone is going to provide aid they need to see the job till it is complete and not leave when things get hard.

Looking athe Dunant v Nightingale sheds a lot of light on how different NGOs, INGOs, MONGOs etc operate. I personally think the Nightingale approach is the one that everyone should follow. When looking at places that America provides aid then, like stated above, it does more harm than good to be apolitical. We can’t go into places like Syria and the DRC and only provide medical aid when there is something far deeper going on. When it comes to things like aid relief for natural disasters then the Dunant approach is absolutely the model we should follow; there is not political force or person oppressing people when it comes to nature. Going into a natural disaster site with an advocacy mindset does not make sense. But, in conflict zones then it absolutely does. There is a fine line to walk that we are not pushing out political and cultural beliefs on them. When we go into these places we need to be thinking about humanitarian rights and how to let these people live the best lives they can. What we can’t do is go in with the guise of advocacy but are really looking for a way to shift the political scales of that country in favor of the United States. Understanding these two viewpoint is imperative to understanding aid work. We have to see that there are different approaches to aid work and that not everyone will follow one or the other. If there was a reform to the aid sector I would imagine it looking like natural disaster relief organizations follow the Dunant approach while those that go into conflict zones follow the Nightingale approach. It is not easy to pick a side with these two because it typically aligns with someone’s religion, moral, and/or ethical beliefs and that is not something people like to be debated on. But, for true positive change to come to this world then maybe it is time to start hurting some people’s feeling.

 

 

  • Now that we are at the end of the semester, summarize the differences between how the late January ‘you’ and the end-or-semester ‘you’ would define the ‘humanitarian imperative.’  The title of this course is ‘Being and Becoming a Global Citizen’. Summarize the differences between how the late January ‘you’ and the end-or-semester ‘you’ would define ‘global citizen.’

 

 

I am, as a person, rather cynical and my opinions on the humanitarian system match that. Back during my first year on campus I was convinced that I was going to go into the PeaceCorps after graduation. It sounded so appealing; two years abroad helping people and federal loan forgiveness. Life couldn’t get much better than that. Then, I started doing more research about the organization and aid work in general and suddenly I became so jaded about the field. All the picture I saw were just white people helping brown people and I couldn’t help but think my experience would be horrendous. After going abroad and volunteering while I was there changed things a little. It was a different perspective; being black (colored to South Africans) helping other black and colored people. I was received far better than white Americans that were also volunteering; it was like the kids wanted to help me remember a heritage I had no connection to other than my skin color. In the end, I learned so much more from those kids then what my ‘job’ was to go in and teach them. This was the mindset I had coming into this class; good can be done but we have to be open to learning and let it be a reciprocal relationship, not one that is based on ‘I have the resources that you lack so I’m gonna make you do what I want.” I came into the class with a vague idea of what a global citizen was and a hazy idea of what aid workers really do. Now, I have a clearly vision. Some of that cynicism has come back especially after learning varying statistics of the aid world and learning about things like force multipliers. I think I have a more realistic idea of the sector and I can say that I would like to go into aid work at some point in my life. There is so much aid that a lot of the world needs but having the knowledge from this class I feel I could tackle some of these problems in a less ethnocentric viewpoint than what some organizations promote. It is much like what Kenzie is planning on doing: volunteering with a problematic organization to be that rebel within. Another thing about my mindset that is different from my January self is that now I understand how much of a system aid work is exactly. But, when we think too much about systems we forget that individuals make up that system. It is a lot easier to try to change a person here and there but it sounds impossible to tackle an entire system. While it still seems like quite a daunting task I feel more confident, knowing that progress can be made no matter how small. Further, I did not realize the impact that going into aid work can have no matter who you are. Genevieve talking to us rather candidly about that provided more insight than I could have ever hoped for. In January I imagine aid workers as either these super human beings that could do anything or these stereotypical white people going into the field just for the pictures with the little black and brown people. But, talking to all these different aid workers (J, Tawhid, Genevieve) really put a little perspective on the field. For one, not everything is hands on work like in the case of Tawhid. People have to crunch numbers, order supplies, and be the driving forces from behind the scenes. And there are some people that have to see the atrocities that happen on the field like the three narrators of  Emergency Sex. People like Genevieve and Heidi are still dealing with the impact of their aid work in the forms of depression or PTSD. Aid work is not pretty. In all, the biggest change has been learning that humanitarian aid is not as cut and dry as I previously thought.

I say all this to give to perspective as to how my definition of the humanitarian imperative and global citizen have changed. Before, I would say that a global citizen is someone who has travelled all over the world and just has a ‘worldy’ energy about them. Some people will go to Thailand to see the monks and come back a Buddhist. I thought that that was what someone is supposed to do to be considered a global citizen. But, now I understand it as someone who is able to view the world and appreciate the beauty in our differences and find the grace in our similarities. It can be someone who has travelled or not but it feels more like an aura than an accomplishment. If someone who has travelled is it be considered a global citizen then I think that means that they are able to fully immerse into a culture and to drop as many of their own biases as possible. It means that when they come back to their home country they are able to apply the principles they learned abroad and are able to see the things people may have had to say about the home country that before the person didn’t really understand. Being a global citizen, that I didn’t understand in January, is about being open to learning about other cultures and not just forgetting all of that once you leave the country you were visiting.

As for the humanitarian imperative this has been a complete shift. If you asked me what the humanitarian imperative was in January I probably could not give you a coherent sentence to try to define it. But, now I view it, much as other classmates have said during class times, as a Western idea. I think all humans have an intrinsic need to help other but with the Western world we always want to send that need to help overseas rather than helping the people in our own backyard. Look at the world imperative itself  means something is absolutely necessary, critical even. I think only Westerners view the world as a place to show off about how kind and generous we are. It is like ‘here we are, we have money, let us help you, and if you aren’t grateful then that’s on you nto us.’ That is kind of how I view the humanitarian imperative now. By calling it an imperative with the word humanitarian, which I’ve really only seen in Western literature, makes it sound like we have to help. And that is not to say that we shouldn’t if we have the resources. But, what makes it problematic in my eyes is that we will go overseas to build orphanages in conflict zones that inhabitable for children but don’t see anything wrong with the foster care system in America. Hearing the words humanitarian imperative makes me think that Americans, and the Western world, don’t think anything is wrong with us and that we are the best therefore we have to go into other countries to make them better and more like America. It is the principle that the Western world was founded on, taming the ‘savage’ Native Americans, breeding the aboriginal blood out of Native Australians etc. We have never been good at looking inwards and this course solidified that idea for me.

 

Citations

Cain, Kenneth, et al. Emergency Sex: (and Other Desperate Measures): True Stories from a War Zone.

Ebury, 2006.

 

Pictet, Jean. “The Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross : Commentary.” ICRC, 1 Jan. 1979,

www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/misc/fundamental-principles-commentary-010179.htm.

 

Selanders, Louise & Crane, Patrick. The Voice of Florence Nightingale on Advocacy,

ojin.nursingworld.org/MainMenuCategories/ANAMarketplace/ANAPeriodicals/OJIN/TableofCo

ntents/Vol-17-2012/No1-Jan-2012/Florence-Nightingale-on-Advocacy.html.

 

Polman, Linda, et al. The Crisis Caravan: Whats Wrong with Humanitarian Aid? Picador, 2011.

 

Arcaro , Tom. “Being and Becoming a Global Citizen.” Class discussions. SOC371, 2019, Elon, NC.

This citation encompasses all of the knowledge pulled from a variety of different classes including Skype guest speakers, presentations, and student led discussions

Posted in Final | Comments Off on Final blog post

That The World May Know Blog Post

By Katherine Evans | Published May 15, 2019

That the World May Know: Bearing Witness to Atrocity, by James Dawes, examines the role of storytelling in addressing, and communicating, the horrific events of the many atrocities that happen around the world. As Dawes states at the beginning of his Introduction, “The events described in this book help to answer two important questions: How do we make comprehensible stories out of incomprehensible atrocities? And what are the ethical risks of doing so?” (Dawes 1). The conceptual framework of Dawes book rests on four posts: “the ethics of storytelling, the difference storytelling makes, the ethics of human rights and humanitarian work, and the difference this work makes ” (Dawes 7). While Dawes examines each of these issues in detail, the most important for the purpose of the prompt for this blog post is: the ethics of storytelling.

In considering the PSA, our group produced earlier in the semester, the purposely insensitive and insulting interview questions we posed to our subjects point out how easy it is to approach storytelling from a fundamentally flawed perspective. As our PSA asks in graphics, at the end of the video, “If you can’t take the time to understand the differences in your own community… what makes you qualified to go into other communities? Other Cultures? And tell them what they need ?” (Evans, Greenbaum, Vaughn).

By focusing on the stories of the Rwandan Genocide, and the experiences of humanitarian and aid workers across the globe, Dawes lays out the many land mines that face those who work to tell the stories of horrific world events, and the people who survived and died as a result of those atrocities.

The issue Dawes examines that most strongly relates to our PSA is what he terms, “the moral risks of professional witnessing” (230). To me, this term sums up what we were trying to present in our PSA. Anytime you tell a story, you must first examine, and ask: what are your biases? Are you the right person to tell this story? Will telling this story cause more harm or good? Dawes quotes South African writer Antjie Krog, in reference to telling the stories of victims of Apartheid: “There are so many ways to hurt others when trying to speak for them, so many and so unexpected” (Dawes 9). This is one of the main points our PSA was trying to make. Telling other people’s stories can be dangerous, and harmful, so, before you begin, you must examine your motives.

In discussing the role of interviewers in the storytelling process, Dawes quotes from an interview he did with Dave Eggers, the editor of an oral history series on human rights, published in the independent press McSweeney’s. Eggers states, “…we as interviewers can get a sense that we’ve stolen something. That aspect of theft that we can feel as journalists or human rights documentarians. [He emphasizes the point]: I came in, I stole something from you, I took your story, and you’ll never see me again.” Eggers went on to say, “the person that they took it from has in many cases gotten nothing” (Dawes 176-177).

In chapter four, Dawes examines the inherent problems in human rights storytelling, particularly when done by outsiders to the events. Dawes acknowledges that the problems of finding a way of telling a true story about humanitarian interventions is as true for his own book, as it is for all other journalists, writers, playwrights and artists. He quotes an early reader of his manuscript who said, “Who nominates you to publicize pain and suffering that you can walk away from?” (Dawes 166).

Our PSA made the point that the interviewer––the person guiding the story through the questions they ask––must take a hard look at themselves, before they begin the process of telling the stories of others. This is as true in our culture, here, in America, as it is for the work we may do as global citizens.

 

Works Cited:

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Assignment 7 | Comments Off on That The World May Know Blog Post

Emergency Sex Blog Post

By Katherine Evans | Published May 15, 2019

In ‘s Emergency Sex, the reader is introduced to three typical aid workers: Jamie, Blank, and Blank. Each aid worker is stationed on the ground in a different waring countries, full of suffering refugees, immigrants, and IDPs. The book asks us to examine whose experience was the most significant in terms of life changing experience, trauma, and how each individual deals with adversity. While many of my classmates cited one specific individual, I have decided that I believe that none of the aid workers have a more impactful story. Each is equally terrifying and rewarding, but noticeably different. That said, each aid worker experiences the joy and pain that comes with humanitarian work and human connection. While each experience hellish traumas, including Gender Based Violence (GBV)––this is where the book’s almost assaulting/shocking title comes from––it is important to note that these experiences make them better aid workers. Why is this the case? Well, the answer is simple: empathy.

Posted in Assignment 6 | Comments Off on Emergency Sex Blog Post

Extra Credit

By jvaughn5 | Published May 15, 2019

Here are a few of my thoughts from this semester:

 

Day with Genevieve-

  • Having humanitarian workers talk about their mental health should be something we talk about more. It is wild to think that her is Genevieve living with PTSD from her time overseas, home for a year before the diagnosis, and she hasn’t really talked about it with anyone. We have to start this conversation so that people know exactly what this work entails. I wonder thought if people start to talk about more if that will make people not want to do the work. Americans have a bad habit of not wanting to do things if it will negatively impact them in any way.
  • In the case of the DRC it is hard to send people into an area where the government will not help to protect these people. They need aid work over there as I did research about Ebola in the country. Every time aid work decreases the Ebola rates rise. For countries such as them that can’t maintain stable infrastructure the importance of aid work has to be communicated. I did a epidemiology presentation on the Ebola crisis in the DRC which is why it interested me to hear her perspective. I didn’t realize how much I would talk about humanitarian aid in my presentation. It got me thinking more and more how Public Health and Sociology really go together and my knowledge in each of these majors has helped the other. Public health is everywhere and so is sociology.

 

Joey’s Presentation

 

  • Honor among thieves
  • cycle of poverty because farmers in the dry season have to try to work around certain things but in order to survive during the down season they put themselves deeper into poverty
    • This just adds proof that pulling oneself up by the bootstraps is not a good enough excuse to keep capitalism and the top economic system. All we keep doing is putting impoverished people in this false sense of consciousness that one day we can be like Bill Gates but the system was literally designed to not have that happen.
  • sex trafficking- have to sell off their kids in order to make money
    • This is actually a global problem that no one really wants to talk about. We immediately want to shame the parents for doing what they did (because it is horrible at the end of the day) but we never talk about how the economic set up of a country forces then to do this.
  • aid workers going into those areas are actually creating an environment that perpetuates the sex trafficking by having companies that is donating the money is pressuring the aid workers to do projects that don’t actually benefit the community and so the community has to keep doing the things that perpetuate their poverty and sex trafficking practices

 

Takeaway from J- sometimes fiction is the work around to talking about things you shouldn’t be talking about. Fiction lets us connect more to the people that need to hear the story than non-fiction. Nonfiction people see its about them and instantly get defensive but with fiction since you don’t immediately tie it to you, you can find patters and be like ‘ohhh that’s kind of what we do’ and hopefully change for the better. Interesting tactic (maybe there’s a better word than tactic) to use when trying to bring change to a unmoving machine.

 

 

Aid working being apolitical

  • it shouldn’t exist
  • it should exist
  • can it exist?
  • When it comes to natural disaster absolutely it should be apolitical because there is no force to combat because we can’t fight nature. Even if a tornado hits a country that could give us no political gain, if we have the tools to help them then we should
  • When it comes to aid in conflict zones then here we should be political. If we know how to end a civil war in a country, then why not do that to overall prevent more deaths rather than just prolonging it. This gets tricky when the people committing the atrocities are people that can benefit the US in some way because then they wouldn’t be as inclined to stop their ‘allies.’

 

Overall takeaways:

  • I thought I wanted to go into the peace corps and then I thought I didn’t and then this class made me for sure not want to go into the aid sector. But, part of me is also of the idea that I can try to fix things from the inside (because that’s just who I am) so now I think I want to go into the aid sector just to be a little rebel within.
  • Globalization is the devil. I’ve learned so much about globalization (like how it impacts the physical structure of a city and therefore keeps impoverished people impoverished but makes it so we can’t see them and thus forget the exist) and now its impact on aid work. It really just makes everything so much more complicated than it needs to be and I get that we want to be connected to the world but globalization + capitalism= many bad things.
    • Plus, it makes it harder to save the planet
  • Are there any straight answers in sociology? The answer is simply no. There are too many things to consider when trying to fix a problem. It’s not just looking at the government, or the economy, or the culture. It’s all of it. Maybe deep down at the start of modern society an intended latent function of all the systems was to become so interwoven that change becomes this impossible large task that no one wants to take on.

 

 

 

Theme of this class: Woah, well there’s no solution

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Extra Credit

Need More Help? Call the Technology Service Desk • 336.278.5200

Powered by WordPress and Technology.