Recommendations for the Future of Humanitarianism
The Basis of Humanitarianism
In order for an effective humanitarianism to exist, the definition of the this systematic response must be shifted. As defined earlier, humanitarianism is a systematic response to those in need of aid. When humanitarianism is looked at through this lens, it is easy for organizations to do whatever they believe the needs are. However, it is not about the organization, but rather about the receiver of add. Michael Barnett, in his book Empire of Humanity: A History of Humanitarianism, states that “humanitarianism exists to attend to the needs of the giver” (Barnett 20). This misguided focus of humanitarianism contradicts the very nature of what it is intended to be. In this case, the very foundation of humanitarianism needs to be shifted in order to ensure that organizations promote the receiver rather than the giver. Even changing the wording to simply “a systematic response with those in need of aid” would prove to be more inclusive language than there is now. Once the language surrounding humanitarianism evolves to more receiver-focused wording, it will force non-governmental organizations to focus their campaigns on the receivers rather than the givers themselves. The media will then in turn will then need to focus on the receiver as well long after the news cycle shifts.
The Separation of Self and Institution
With a renovation to the definition of humanitarianism, it will be on the individual humanitarians within an organization to promote a new spotlight and separate themselves from the institution. As an individual within a greater organization, one takes on the responsibility of living the beliefs of that institution. This burden is the same for humanitarians as a part of any organization providing aid. For the individual givers of aid, Liisa Malkki states in The Need to Help, that “Giving is often styled as emanating from an abundance… but… giving emerges out of a stark need” (Malkki 164). In this part of her book, Malkki is not talking about the need of the receiver, but rather the need of the giver (i.e., the need to fulfill their life calling). This mutual relationship between the individual giver and the receiver is not an inherently negative thing. In fact, in many ways it is astonishing that humanitarianism has the potential to positively affect both sides of the coin. However, the problem arises when the individuals play into the organizations selfish desires. Perpetuating the media response because the individual and aid organization benefits from it also bolsters a humanitarianism that is not acceptable. In order to break this cycle, the individual must play their part in separating themselves from the institution, especially an institution that refuses to change and plays into the celebritization and media frenzy of aid.
The Switching of Focus
As the definition of humanitarianism shifts and the self separates from the institution, humanitarianism has the ability to genuinely raise the voice of the receivers and lift up their needs. The givers of humanitarianism are often on top in an unbalanced power dynamic. Instead of asking what the receivers need, they tell them what they are getting and expect them to be happy with it. Although this aid is not necessarily all negative, it masks the receiver and makes the face of the receiver a celebrity who is not dealing with the same pain. This mask will inevitably create a gap between the aid that is being given and the receiver of said aid. In Nicolas de Torrenté’s “The Relevance and Effectiveness of Humanitarian Aid: Reflections about the Relationship between Providers and Recipients,” he states that “Aid is not only a material resource… but also a symbolic one” (de Torrenté 609). In this case, aid as a symbol has the ability to swing the pendulum and bring the receivers into the light. As a $28.9 billion industry, humanitarianism has a wide reach and influence (Development Initiatives). With a reach like this, if the focus is shifted to the receivers of aid, they will be placed on a massive stage with the ability to share their stories and needs. Once the giver is quieted and the receiver is raised up, it will provide the ability for organizations to take a back seat and give the aid that is truly needed and deserved.
The Conclusion
As seen through the Afghanistan humanitarian crisis case study and a deeper understanding of the celebrity response to aid framework, the effects of hyper-celebritization on humanitarian crises have the potential to be devastating. Although the individual givers and people within an organization might not have ill-intentions, they are preserving an industry of self-indulgence and saviorism. It is not easy nor feasible to expect humanitarian aid to change overnight or for every individual humanitarian to stand up against their organizations. However, it is important to not ignore obvious holes in a multi-century old industry. The United States, as they have been so many times, was completely contradictory when violently engaging in a country just to turn around and tell them how to live life, set up communities, and learn the “correct” way. As humanitarianism is focused on non-governmental organizations, their job should not be to engage or play into governmental missteps and contradictions. Rather, humanitarianism should be an effort to rectify and support the necessary receivers of aid on their terms and in the ways that they need. When humanitarianism can begin to take steps forward, leaving their past of hypocrisy behind them, the industry can begin to silence the giver and broadcast the receiver.
Humanitarianism Final 