Come down from the mountain, we need the clouds
Anybody still reading this blog will have noticed that there hasn’t been much to read lately. That’s because I’ve largely left the humanitarian community behind – or been left behind by the humanitarian community, depending on your perspective. When I started out in this game, one of my earliest bosses said to me “You’re far too cynical for somebody so young”, but I tended to wear my cynicism as a badge of pride.
That cynicism was a combination of my natural disposition with my tuition by Dr Reg Cline-Cole, one of the nicest guys I ever had the fortune to meet – but also one of the most deeply disillusioned. At one point in my degree course, I asked him why he was so downbeat about environmental issues. He replied that it was to make sure that anybody who still wanted to work in development by the end of his course had their eyes open about the realities they’d face.
By the end of the course, I still wanted to work in development, mainly because it offended my sense of justice that so many people had such limited opportunities in life. It didn’t take me long, however, to determine that I found “development” to be a dead end, a waste of resources that had consistently failed to deliver on its promises. Individual development projects have certainly had positive impacts on the lives of thousands around the world; but the project of development has failed, because its practitioners largely didn’t understand how the world actually works.
I found myself drawn into humanitarian work as a more viable opportunity to help people, while remaining aware that it had its own limitations. The short-term nature of humanitarian response in particular is problematic on a number of levels, but particularly because it lead to the development of vacuous nonsense such as the relief to development continuum, which destroyed the sector’s ability to understand how people live their lives for the sake of a theoretical construct. There were a lot of problems, but at the end of the day, lives were saved – and that was basically the humanitarian mission fulfilled.
There were two things which increased my disillusionment with the sector to the point where I basically withdrew, the first being my inability to stomach the systemic problems that I saw. Harry Rud recently outlined some of these feelings in his Spike Milligan tribute post, and in a follow-up comment pointed out that he
reject[s] all claims of liberal guilt or that i am kicking myself. this is a statement of fact. some of the things i do have a negative impact. i’m cool with that.
This was in response to a comment from Transitionland that, if he truly felt that he was having such a negative impact, then he must be suffering from a serious case of liberal guilt. Now I respect both Harry Rud and Transitionland, but here I disagree with both of them. This isn’t a case of liberal guilt, because I don’t suffer from guilt. The problems that Harry outlines are merely symptons of a system that is egregiously and irredeemably flawed, not self-satisfying morsels of liberal guilt. We are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
The second thing which lead up to my withdrawal follows on from the first. I spent a very large part of my working life trying to fix some of those problems in my small part of the sector. I had no illusions that I personally could change the entire sector; I just wanted to make it work better. One of the key problems with the sector, however, turned out to be that attempting to make it work better is a) just a distraction from the real systemic problems, and b) any attempts to make it work better usually run aground on those systemic problems. It’s in this context that I am sceptical about ideas such as regulation of the sector, which was recently posed again by Tales from the Hood (whose blog is also excellent and you should read).
I worked for two years on the Emergency Capacity Building Project, which was an incredibly rewarding experience which had the paradoxical result of making me want to leave the sector. The organisations involved in the project were genuinely invested in it, and the people working on the project were all intelligent and committed – without exception, I would say. The donors were engaged and open, and the funding was not a problem, at least not for the scale of work. With all of these factors in place, I still felt that it was impossible to make the organisational changes necessary for these organisations to really use technology to the advantage of their staff and – more importantly – the beneficiaries. 1
Explicitly: in many ways, the interests of the organisations are in direct conflict with those of the beneficiaries (and to a lesser extent the staff), and this is true of the sector overall. At this point in an already-long post, I’m not going to go into detail, but I’m happy to defend that position – and would be even happier to be proved completely wrong. Without some faith in the possibility of change, however, I found it increasingly difficult to continue working, because this type of work is a vocation; if you don’t believe in the mission, then you probably shouldn’t be doing the work.
For the last couple of years I’ve been taking on small contracts. I did some work with UNICEF which I thought was worthwhile, and some work with NATO which will have some small impact; I’ve been pleased to be in contact with some smart people with good ideas, and possibly even to have helped them develop those ideas. I’ve been proud to be involved with the Sahana project, even though I had to step away because I saw the same problems developing there that were obvious in the rest of the sector; I still think Sahana is a good idea and I hope it succeeds.
I kept this blog going because there wasn’t anywhere else keeping an eye on the intersection between technology and the humanitarian sector, although that’s less true now. There are other people pursuing other avenues that go off at angles away from mine. Personally I think that those avenues are dead ends as well, for the reasons that I’ve outlined above; but it’s not my place to dismiss the work of others, particularly when I’m not making any positive contributions of my own to the sector at present.
In the end I realised that I was happier when I was working as an assistant on kayak tours or planning to publish books than when I was reviewing databases for IDP management or making scrappy maps. Although I’d like to be going out and trying to help some people who are less fortunate than me, I’m just not convinced that what I was doing before was helping people that much. After two years of trying to come up with alternatives, I’ve drawn a blank; and that’s why this blog remains empty for now.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
- I want to emphasise here that the ECB Project was worth every penny of donor money spent on it, produced many valuable lessons and some innovative pilot projects. My critique doesn’t invalidate any of that, but nor does any of that invalidate my critique; the point being that at root I believe they are talking about different issues. [↩]
Well, for what it’s worth, your insights are greatly appreciated. While you might be leaving direct engagement in the “humanitarian industrial complex” behind, I hope that that space from it continues to give you an objective view of the system as a whole. I’ll keep it in the reader, as I’m sure you’ll have new thoughts popping up over time.
By the way, one question… If working within the sector (trying to fix it) ends up continuing the problems endemic to it, why not work to deconstruct they system instead?
Erik
20 Jul 09 at 17:48
Erik, thanks for the supportive words. We’ll see if the separation leads to divorce…
I believe that deconstructing the system as an active goal isn’t possible. As an industry, the vested interests are too strong – you’re not just taking on the agencies, but the governments that fund them and the public support that’s behind them. Change is possible – I’ve seen positive change happen in my working life, and it’s been very satisfying – but the whole point of a system is that it contains a lot of mutually reinforcing parts, all of which will fight like hell to maintain their position. This of course is one of the reasons why co-ordination is such a nightmare.
The system will change – one of my other beliefs is that the current system will be radically undermined by developments external to the sector, such as the financial crisis – but it will be an evolutionary process. Actively attempting to shape that process is very similar to actively attempting to shape human evolution – definitely misguided, possibly impossible and a wee bit arrogant. The best we can hope for is to pursue projects that we believe address short-term and immediate issues, and hope that they contribute to change that we want to see. Anything else is labouring under the myth that success is the result of good ideas or hard work, rather than luck.
Paul Currion
20 Jul 09 at 18:46
Paul, your reliable critical voice is going to be missed. That intersection of technology and humanitarian work is so vulnerable to over-hype .. you’ve definitely helped us keep things real. To me, invaluable service.
Myself and others, we’re going to keep scurrying around this system, on the lookout for lucky leverage points. I’ve personally come up against disheartening systematic blocks, but still have some fight left. No guarantee of “success”, sometimes this feels just like the work we have to do.
Mikel
20 Jul 09 at 22:04
Again, thanks for the supportive words. I wanted to explain why I’m off the radar now, rather than discourage others – I definitely think that you guys have some leverage on certain parts of the system, and you must continue to apply pressure. Like you, it still feels like the work we have to do, but the question for me right now is what is the best way to do that work. Who knows, maybe I’ll have an answer by the middle of next week
Paul Currion
20 Jul 09 at 22:37
From what I have read of your blogs you know far better than myself that it’s a tough sphere! But being able to come across honest perspectives from others working in a similar field is hard to come by. I appreciate your input, and relate to much of it. As I am sure you have experienced, out in the field it can sometimes feel you are the only one to see such faults, especially when there is sometimes so much resistance towards even the most basic of changes. Take time out sure, decision to leave the humanitarian world behind won’t change it. Change can only come about if enough like-minded people persist, or else the whole profession will be left to fat cats, thrill seekers, bureaucrats, and humanitarian tourists.
Saga
29 Jul 09 at 5:49
Very good and interesting post. Very down-to-the-very bottom-of-it. Also, I very much like your response and comments to Eric’s remarks and the comments by Saga (and her reference to ‘humanitarian tourists’ … many, no?).
The big system … Yes, way too big to change with a sweep. The conflict between beneficiaries and the organisations …
You are very open and ‘out there’ articulating something, and things, that I think and hope a lot of people (working in the sector, or not), are aware of. Problem is knowing and trying to do something about the inherent problems, and doing it, yet is it really making a difference, i.e., the needed difference …? This is the question. How much can a person do from within the system? In order to work in development, where should one work, if not in the development sector? Nowhere …? Private sector? Partnerships? Your thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated. …
Also, how would you think would the financial crisis impact the system?
Nadejda Loumbeva
29 Jul 09 at 13:41
Saga – It may be premature for me to say that I’ve left the humanitarian world behind entirely (cough cough) but I’ve failed to find answers to the questions that I’ve always had about the humanitarian sector. The hardest question is the one that nobody even wants to ask: what if the humanitarian sector can’t be fixed? What if the entire enterprise is fundamentally flawed in such a way that it doesn’t matter how many reform processes we start, how much tweaking we do, whehter we use technology more effectively – it will always fail to achieve what it claims to achieve? If that’s the case, then the fat cats, thrill seekers, bureaucrats and tourists are welcome to it…
Paul Currion
29 Jul 09 at 21:02
Nadejda – It seems unlikely that radical change can come from within an organisation, since radical change is more likely to kill an organisation than cure it. As a friend of mine said this week, you don’t often hear about footballers changing the rules while playing the game. The financial crisis, however, is something that might lead to radical change – an exogenous shock to the humanitarian system that forces people to reconsider their entire strategy. The problem is that – from what I see – organisations are trying to do more with less, rather than taking the opportunity to do things completely differently.
In order to work in development, where should one work? To start with, I don’t know what “development” is – I think we’d both agree that seeing development from a solely economic point of view is faintly ridiculous, and that development should be seen in a more full sense. The problem with that is that development then becomes defined as pretty much everything that anybody does to improve their life or livelihood, which isn’t a very useful definition at all. There is such a thing as development, but whether the “development industry” is particularly meaningful seems more open to question; I see progress where I didn’t expect it, and lack of progress where I did.
The problem that follows from that is that nobody seems to be clear about what constitutes successful development at a macro level. One thing that the financial crisis exposes, when accompanied by growing environmental problems, is that the implicit goal of development – i.e. everybody in the world gets similar life opportunities to the rich west – is not actually a goal that is feasible or desirable. My personal response has been to start thinking about how my own life, families and communities are likely to change in the future, and work towards a more rewarding and resilient lifestyle, rather than imagine I have the answers for everybody else.
(I do have the answers for everybody else, of course, I’m just keeping it very quiet.)
Paul Currion
29 Jul 09 at 21:17
Paul,
Although I have been only an occasional visitor to the humnanitarianinfo blog, I found it useful, insightful and thought-provoking and I am sorry to see you taking a break. As both a cynic and an idealist, it is easy to get disillusioned and frustrated with slow progress and artifical obstacles. As someone who has also tried to push the envelope and had some initiatives succeed and others fail, I came to believe the same as you that success is the result of luck (timing) rather than due to good ideas and hard work, and the best we can hope for is small, short-term progress rather than fulfillment of a coordinated strategy.
As others have said, your critical but reliable voice will be missed and served a role. Your contributions, including ECBP and Sahana, did have an effect/impact. That might be all that an individual can hope for…”Fixing” the humanitarian sector, like ending war, repression, injustice, misery, and stupidity forever, will never be achieved given our humanity. The only thing we have any hope of fixing and reforming is ourselves as individuals. Everyone must find their own answers to their unique questions. After a break, I hope you do become re-engaged and in the meantime, I wish you the best of luck in kayaking, creative writing and publishing, love, or whatever you decide to pursue.
Dennis King
Dennis King
3 Aug 09 at 15:28
Paul, thanks for getting back on my earlier comments. Good. I agree with you on three points:
1. Yes, ideally the financial crisis will transform the international development sector, but not only! It will transform the private sector too, i.e., all of these companies who are all about profit and nothing at all about society and people. (Why are there no courts for their crimes? My point of view is a little extreme, it is on purpose.)
2. Yes, the whole idea of a ‘development sector’ is a little flawed as it is at the end of the day all about that, i.e., it is all about development. Why work otherwise, why do anything? All work, all that we do, be it with companies or non-profits, or the UN, can have a positive impact on the world we share with others … (I hope I do not sound too religious, I am not actually, not in that sense …)
3. Lastly, yes. The world can be too big to change as individuals, but we can, as individuals, fulfil our sense of purpose, and follow the internal call of destiny (let’s say destiny as writing it rather than as reading it …). (And so I agree with Denis, too – lots of agreement.) In this way we can hope we are doing the right thing, and such kind of hope and belief matters.
I may be beginning to sound like a priest (i.e., priestess … not bad, as change is needed in that sector, too
.) … I think the point behind all this is that this conversation has been useful to those who follow you and so you should continue with it if your internal call of destiny makes you so inclined. : – D
Thank you.
Nadejda Loumbeva
22 Sep 09 at 17:05
Here is something on transformative learning (innovation) in humanitarian organisations that I think goes some way towards addressing the problems discussed in this post:
http://www.alnap.org/pool/files/8rhach3.pdf
Nadejda Loumbeva
18 Oct 09 at 11:50