 |
| A shanty town called Khayelitsha in South Africa |
How can we help other cultures when their norm is different than our
norm?
The problem of
relativism
When
thinking about international aid, this question always surfaces. We may think
we are helping other countries by giving them certain types of aid, however
without fully putting ourselves in their shoes, the aid can be severely
detrimental to their culture and society.
This
is an example of the allegory of the cave, as it shows how relativism can at
times play a negative role in how we think of the world. In the cave, the
prisoners had no idea they were imprisoned, and thus had no conception of what
it is like to be free. When the free prisoner tried to tell the prisoners of
how great the free world is, they could not hear him because the free guy could
not relate to them anymore.
In
other cultures, they may have traditions or ways-of-life that us Westerners frown
upon, but without putting their story in relative terms, we cannot judge them.
Just like the free prisoner who tried to tell the prisoners how great the world
is, but seemed foreign to the prisoners, we as Westerners cannot create
international aid plans without fully investigating the culture we are trying
to help out. In order to create a foreign aid plan, we must know what the
country needs, not want we think they want.
Maybe
an example will help envision this situation better. I mean you are still probably
thinking, how can aid be BAD!?
“A vast body of research shows that foreign aid has done little to spur economic growth in Africa — and may have actually slowed it down.”
-Rasna Warah Time Magazine
Here
we go (bare with me while I try and recall specific details):
One
class I took in high school was all about international aid. We spent a lot
of time debating how aid should be given based on our moral compasses. I
entered the class thinking all aid was good, and left it skeptical of the aid
we give to Third World Countries. Here’s one example why.
In
one developing country in Africa, there was, from an outsider perspective, a
need for mosquito nets because of a Malaria epidemic. So, mosquito nets were
sent to this country with the intention that the civilians would use the nets. The
mosquito nets were not used, and the aid donors were in disbelief. The aid
donors thought the civilians needed
mosquito nets, but that was not the actual problem. The problem was not one of
mosquitoes or even malaria, but it was an economic problem. See, the problem
with these nets is that they act as Band-Aid, helping the country in the
short-term, but hurting it long-term by creating a dependence on foreign aid.
From a United-States standpoint, we think mosquito nets will help ‘free’ the
civilians of this country, however we cannot ‘free’ them until we figure out a
way to relate to them.
Without
putting ourselves in the shoes of those living in developing countries, we do
not know what they need, and thus, cannot make assumptions. The free prisoner,
after seeing the daylight, does not know what the prisoners need or want, and
thus, cannot make an assumption based on
what he feels. He must be able to relate to the prisoners in order to set
them free, just like aid donors must relate to civilians in Third World
countries in order to help them out.
Now in order to fix these problems, which is definitely, definitely, easier said than done, we must dig deep into these cultures and figure out how to build up the countries with a strong infrastructure that will allow it to prosper for years down the road. Only then, will we be able to 'free' the people we so longingly have wanted to do.
For a more informed and formal discussion of why aid is
detrimental to the African nation, Check
out this TED talk by African journalist Andrew Mwenda
I think I understand the fundamental concept of what you are saying, but at the same time I disagree with the negative characterization you make of much of our foreign aid.
ReplyDeleteThe problems of African nations run far deeper than lack of food, clean water and diseases, although each of these are large problems themselves. Many African governments are unstable, stable due to the presence of a dictator, or are extremely corrupt (or some combination of the three). In this sense, sending aid to nations is indeed a band-aid to the deeper socioeconomic problems many African nations face.
Furthermore, I agree that more focus needs to be placed on growing the economies of these nations through agricultural development and medical training. But in the interim, providing food, water and care to these nations saves lives. The fact is that there are still many people in Africa without proper nourishment, although the world produces enough food to provide for everyone. I'm not so sure that provide more aid, enough to actually fill the demand of African nations, wouldn't be a very good option at this point.
However, I am not advocating that rich foreign nations simply treat Africa as welfare states. If foreign nations really want to effect change in African countries, they must start at the top and ensure that the governments of these nations are actually trying to develop their nations instead of simply trying to get rich. But doing these things is so much more controversial; everyone wants African nations to improve, but nobody actually wants to suffer the political implications of getting involved in another nations domestic policy, even though that might be the best option (see Japan after WW2).
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThanks for your comment Christopher.
ReplyDeleteI am not so much negatively characterizing aid, as offering a better solution to foreign aid. What I was trying to say (sorry if you didn't catch it), was that the problem with aid today, is that we do not invest resources in truly figuring out what these developing countries need. Thus, yes, you have the free-rider problem, where nobody wants to put their resources into helping these African countries: check out part of this TED talk about that: http://www.ted.com/talks/ngozi_okonjo_iweala_on_aid_versus_trade.html. What I am saying, is we need to move past the interim aid. We have to know these countries inside and out in order to give aid that won't hurt the country.
Another example that I remember from this class I took was about how interim food aid can actually, not even help. In one town we learned about, an aid donor who provided genetically modified food so the people in the town could have a lot of food and not get sick so often. However, they did not even touch the food. They refused to eat it. Again, I go back to my main point: We cannot just give aid without knowing these countries and knowing what they want and how to "set them free."
I think this is a very interesting characterization of foreign aid. Sending aid to poor countries in Africa, Asia, and South America often has unintended consequences. For example, when a poor country is flooded with foreign food aid, the prices become depressed and small farmers in the area cannot make a living off of the food they have grown. Many African countries were stripped of their natural resources during colonization and were left with little infrastructure.
ReplyDeleteI thought the example you used was a strange one: I can understand how a country or people could become dependent on food aid, but I don't think that means that food aid they receive (or mosquito nets, as in our example) should not be used to save as many lives as possible. I do, however, agree that what these countries need in terms of aid is infrastructure so that they eventually can prosper on their own and be fully independent.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your original point that distributing aid, especially to third world countries like those in Africa, can be harmful to these countries if we don't pay careful attention to the unique social, political, and economic conditions that characterize the nation we are aiding. I also agree strongly with Christopher about the reasons for why this aid is harmful as being a top down argument, and I believe this link provides more insight into this: http://www.npr.org/2007/12/12/17095866/is-aid-to-africa-doing-more-harm-than-good
ReplyDeleteMoreover, if we send aid to individual countries that have corrupt governments we are merely fueling the corrupt nature of the nations' institutions by providing their leader more money. This money is then used by the corrupt leader to commit further corrupt acts in order to gain more power. So instead of sending money blindly we need more programs that allow us to send actual policy makers over to Africa. Or maybe the inclusion of a translator that could help express the needs of the indigenous population and what they believe are the biggest obstacles to growth. This would allow policy makers to immerse themselves in the situation that real members of the country we are sending aid to face on a day to day basis. This is much the fix I believe Haley was talking about.
But my question on this point is, if you say that this relates to the allegory of the cave in how the free man can no longer relate to the men in the cave, then how will we ever be able to relate to impoverished nations if this is not the situation we are in? The idea I think you are pointing at is that it is hard for us from thousands of miles away to imagine ourselves in the place of starving children in Africa, but I'm wondering what experiences you believe will allow us to relate to these children? I know you said that we need to figure out how to build a long lasting infrastructure in these countries but if we can never truly relate to the people living in these countries is this possible? I believe that it is and it isn't possible. We can try to listen to indigenous members of a society to see what they find are the most blatant obstacles to growth. We can learn all about the corrupt nature of the government and try to stop this, but if we never grew up in this same environment are we not trying to impose western fixes to third world problems that we cannot relate to?
Hayley,
ReplyDeleteI am able to relate to the arguments you are making but I disagree that it is a problem of relativism. For providing foreign aid goes beyond cultural relativism, I did not think that it is neessarily that we were not able to stand in their shoes. But it is more of what we can do is rather limited. As much as the US would love to promote world development and lift millions out of the vicious poverty for generations of Africans, we have limited resources and could not possibly address every single problem. There are so many countries out there who needs our aid. We can only do our best, perhaps addressing short-term needs first.
Like the example of the mosquito nets, I did not think it is an adequate example to show that foreign aid is not useful and that we are not relating to them. Economic growth is the big picture and a problem that requires long-term investment, while what I believe we can do to mitigate the situation of malaria and mosquitoes is really to address the immediate need of the people. The people woud probably appreciate the fact that there is something practical done to improve this urgent situation.
Helping them achieve eonomic growth would need time and concerted effort of various IGOs and NGOs. I would agree with you that our knowledge of them is not thorough enough to make a good judgement. International organizations and UN governments need to work closer with African governments to brainstorm for solutions, in which i guess persecuting red tapes and corruption is of utmost importance so as to ensure that certain foreign aid ACTUALLY gets to the people (this is a very big problem too with many countries which renders aid ineffective).
I think that in order to address these issues, one should look toward the foundations of poverty before attempting to fix the problems itself. I came across a quick discussion on some of the reasons that Africa is under-developed (http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2007/10/why_is_africa_s_1.html), namely the negative impact that the climate and imperialism has had upon many African countries.
ReplyDeleteI do, however, agree with the fundamentals of what Hayley proposes, which is that our current system of foreign aid to much of Africa does not address many of the underlying issues that face impoverished humans there (and across the world). Mission trips to Africa where white, christian, wealthy men and women take "selfies" with children- to later post on facebook, deriving a sense of having performed a good deed- is deeply problematic and indicative of the paradoxes of many of our attempts to "help" the Africans. The multiple thousand dollar cost of sending a missionary could go toward aid- food is, at the least, better than the invading hordes of white people that we currently sent to the continent.
Though I am far from an expert with an ability to posit the best way to fix the problems that imperialism left behind, I think Hayley brings forth an interesting discussion on foreign aid while discussing Plato's cave as well.
This is an interesting post. I was born and raised in Kenya, a third world country in Africa. I agree with your notion that aid can sometimes be harmful to these countries because we become too dependent on it and it doesn't allow us to grow economically. Also, countries that send aid may not really know the real problem, as seen in your example of the country sending mosquito nets when the third world country really need economic help. Moreover, corruption is prevalent in third world countries, therefore not only do corrupt politicians take the "aid" but some NGO leaders and such organizations may not relate the aid to those in need. I'm not sure how countries that send aid can go about these problems. Sure, maybe knowing what to help with will really help third world countries, and making sure that those in need actually get the aid will benefit them greatly. However, I believe bigger problems should be solved first, these countries should try to help third world countries tackle corruption, poverty and such, therefore making them self-dependent.
ReplyDelete