ASU Nongovernmental Organizations & Humanitarianism Ethics Discussion – Description
comment on the discussion question listed below
and reply to the 2&3 listed responses that 2 other people made on the same question, all seperately. 100 words each
REPLY TO QUESTION
The ethics of humanitarianism is broadly understood based on self-interpretation, and even how we interpret humanitarianism can vary on what aid we see fit. How can we better streamline individual, government, and NGOs interpretation of humanitarian aid? Would streamlining it be effective or vary based on the crisis or the interested parties involved? Would streamlining it bring more risks or concerns for these organizations?”
REPLY TO COMMENTS#1 ON ABOVE QUESTION
Hello, Group 6!I think that in any discipline, streamlining something as subjective and abstract as ‘interpretation’ is nearly impossible. To do this would require the creation of a standard interpretation of humanitarianism, and this begs to question who will set that standard? If those that currently hold the largest financial influence, and thus the most power/influence, within humanitarian aid set this standard then it would naturally favor Western ideology. As we discussed last week, when White Supremacy is centered within humanitarian structures and systems, aid will never truly or fully seek to work in favor of those affected as much as it would for those with power. This also becomes more complicated when taking into account the many different forms of aid organizations that have various affects/effects depending on their respective categorizations: governmental vs. non-governmental, political affiliation, size, geographic location & influence, religious foundations, etc. Even if there were to be an interpretive standard to what humanitarianism is, the aforementioned factors would inevitably influence each entity to yield different humanitarian action/aid results as an extension of their individual organizational identities.
REPLY TO COMMENT #2
Something I thought about a lot when reading Redfield’s Vital Mobility and the Humanitarian Kit was the idea of SOPs- Standard Operating Procedures. Anyone who has worked for a company of decent size is probably familiar with Quick Reference Guides or Standards; basically, SOPs are just written instructions for the way to properly execute a process. I’ve spent my entire adult life working in retail and have been part of the team who wrote or executed SOPs for everything from folding a shirt to placing an inventory order to troubleshooting a cellphone. SOPs are hugely important for customers as well as employers because they ensure a standardized experience for both. For example, I work for Starbucks now, and if we didn’t have an SOP for the way we build a latte, it would taste different at every Starbucks (of course that happens, when baristas don’t follow the SOP!) Having these guidelines is such second nature and so helpful that I was really surprised to read about how MSF didn’t have anything like this and how revolutionary a simple thing like a kit was for delivering aid. The idea of crash landing in a crisis without this most basic of guidelines- I’m surprised aid was delivered at all!Of course because ethics are not universal and every aid worker or aid organization is going to interpret things differently means, in my opinion, that the industry as a whole cannot adopt a guideline for the industry as a whole- again to use my retail metaphor, you just can’t get Dunkin, Starbucks, Peets, Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf (etc etc etc) all to agree that they will make their lattes the same way. Priorities and values are just going to be too vastly different. But within each organization, I think that setting guidelines and streamlining certain processes is an absolute must. In his chapter, Redfield said regarding the MSF’s humanitarian kit that, “standardization here was never an end unto itself, not part of an effort to reshape or capture economic terrain” (pp. 162). It was ultimately necessary for the organization to respond to the crisis effectively. And if these organizations aren’t responding effectively, what’s the point? The fact that being efficient will probably have the secondary effect of saving money is something Redfield purposely notes is not the point, but I think it’s something we can’t ignore. There are no negative consequences to having some established SOPs for delivering aid. The worst that can happen is that a method doesn’t work as expected, and a good organization will pivot, adjust, and try something new next time.
The post ASU Nongovernmental Organizations & Humanitarianism Ethics Discussion first appeared on .
