Mary B. Anderson To Work, or Not to Work, in “Tainted” Circumstances: Difficult Choices for Humanitarians IN 2 0 0 4 , AS THE FIRST A N N IV ER SA R Y OF THE US ENTRY INTO IRAQ, approached, I was asked by colleagues to go to Iraq to conduct some training workshops for the local staff of international nongovernmen tal organizations (NGOs). I am an American. The NGOs I would be work ing w ith receive US governm ent funding for some programs. If I went, would I be reinforcing a m ilitary operation by advancing a “hearts and m inds” campaign? Or would I be dem onstrating concern and support for local people involved in efforts to alleviate suffering and contribute to redevelopment? A few years ago, I was asked by a colleague if my organization would be willing to visit an international corporation—working in a country that is known to abuse its citizens—in order to review the effects of the corporate operations on the people in their area. The corporation is criticized by hum an rights groups for working in this country but, through their own investigations, felt they were benefiting people in the area. If we went, and found that the corporation’s assessment was correct, would we be complicit in supporting oppression? Or would we be contributing to an approach toward helping people who live under difficult circumstances? I begin this article w ith two of the m any possible personal stories I could cite to raise one difficult choice that frequently confronts inter social research Vol 74 : No 1 : Spring 2007 201 national hum anitarian agencies: W hen is it right, and w hen is it wrong, to work in “tainted” circumstances? For international hum anitarians, the decision o f w hether to enter, or stay, in compromised and compromising political and m ilitary settings is one that m ust regularly be faced. It is in the nature of hum an itarian w ork to go to unsettled areas w here existing governance and social structures are inadequate for handling crises. International help is provided w hen situations are out of control and beyond “norm al.” Such situations are often “tainted.” W hat do we m ean by tainted circumstances? We use the term “tainted” to refer to the broad range of situations where, for example, governm ent officials are m ore concerned w ith personal w ealth and power than w ith the well-being of the people, or where international aid is m anipulated by warlords and fighters to serve the ends of w ar or w here international diplomatic, or m ilitary actors expect hum anitar ian assistance to “pick up the pieces” of failed diplomatic initiatives. In these and other such circum stances, the question arises: By w ork ing in this system and w ith these people, although we are here to save lives, are we also complicit w ith and supporting inhum ane or oppres sive processes? In his famous extended essay w ritten in 1970, Exit, Voice and Loyalty, Albert Hirschman explores how individuals and groups can express their dissatisfaction w ith systems that go into decline. He provides w hat he him self calls “numerous baroque ornam entations” to his wise and care ful exam ination of the options for individuals and groups to express themselves through “voice” (speaking out against problems) or “exit” (withdrawing support or leaving), mitigated by and processed through the filter of “loyalty.” Hirschman begins his discussion w ith a focus on customers or staff of firms that go into decline, but he extends the appli cation of his analyses to other types of organizations and even to nation states in ways that are helpful for thinking about the difficult choice we examine here about w hen is it right and w hen is it wrong for people involved in hum anitarian assistance to work in tainted circumstances. Hirschm an’s core question could be translated for the hum ani tarian context as: “W hen political and m ilitary conditions are tainted 202 social research and, thus, will likely taint actions undertaken under their aegis, should hum anitarians stay involved...
Read full abstract
Feb 1, 2020
Andrea Swartzendruber + 2
Open Access