Humanitarianism and Religion

8/2/2019 Humanitarianism and Religion

1/15

Religion andHumanitarianism:Floating Boundaries in a Globalizing World

10-11 October 2009, Graduate Institute of International and

Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland

Conference ReportT h e C e n t r e o n C o n f l i c t , D e v e l o p m e n t a n d P e a c e b u i l d i n g ( C C D P )

Religion, Secularism, and Humanitarianism:

Exploring Differences, Boundaries, and Connections


2/15

AGENDAVilla Barton, 132 Rue de Lausanne, Auditorium Jacques-Freymond (AJF)

The Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva

Saturday, October 10

10:0010:30 Welcome and Introductions

10:3011:45 Belief, Faith, and Religion

What beliefs drive a desire to help suffering people? Do the sources of these beliefs matter for the meaning and practices of response? Are religiousbeliefs discernibly different from other kinds of beliefs and spiritual commitments? How do different kinds of beliefs lead to different understandingsof which suffering strangers matter? What are their physical and spiritual needs? What kind of world is being imagined and created through theiractions and commitments? Do different kinds of beliefs lead to different hierarchy of needs? Can we identify any generalizable relationship

between different kinds of beliefs and different commitments? If so, what are they? If not, what does that say about how we think about the worldof humanitarianism.

Chair: Dr. Hany al-Banna

Panelists: de Waal, Alex; Hicks, Rosemary; Taithe, Bertrand

11:4512:00 Coffee Break

12:0013:15 Differing Faith Organizations, Developing in Similar Ways?

What is the evidence that external pressures such as competition for funds and the need to professionalize and develop accountability mechanisms causedagencies to converge around similar organizational structures, marketing strategies, and the like? What is the evidence that aid agencies are convergingaround a common language and set of humanitarian principles? If they are, why? Given the external pressures to conform, how do (religious) agenciesmaintain their identity and sense of purpose?

Chair: Jonathan Benthall

Panelists: Hopgood, Stephen and Vinjamuri, Leslie; Barnett, Michael; Bornstein, Erica

13:1514:30 Lunch

14:3015:45 Deliverers and Recipients

Do different kinds of agencies choose different places to work? If so, why? How does this affect the principle of impartiality? How does religion

affect the relationship between the deliverers of aid and the local recipients? How does a common identity between the deliverer and recipientaffect how aid is delivered? How does aid affect the kinds of relationships that can develop between aid agencies and local populations?What kinds of space do agencies require to operate? How do local populations perceive aid agencies from different/shared cultural backgrounds?Does it affect the willingness to trust? The kinds of institutions of trust that must develop between agencies and populations?

Chair: Ed Schenkenberg

Panelists: Stein, Janice and Paras, Andrea; Benthall, Jonathan; Abu-Sada, Caroline

15:4516:00 Coffee

16:0017:30 Informal Discussion on Sudan, led by Alex de Waal

19:00 Dinner

Sunday, October 11

09:0010:15 Cooperation Between Agencies

Cooperation is always a challenge because of the existence of competition, suspicion, and mistrust, and there is no reason to believe that religiousidentity, or any identity for that matter, is the principal obstacle to long-term cooperation and genuine partnerships. What are some of the principalobstacles? How can these obstacles be removed or reduced?

Chair: Janice Stein

10:1510:30 Coffee Break

10:3012:30 Break Out Session: A Universal Humanitarianism?

Instead of asking whether humanitarianism is universal, this session asks: how might humanitarianism become universal? What form of dialoguewould be more likely to lead to a wide-ranging consensus? Do all elements of humanitarianism have to be universal? Do such agreements need

to be translated into codes or declarations? What are the advantages and disadvantages of doing so?

12:3013:00 Report Findings

13:00 Lunch and Next Steps

14:00 Authors Meeting


3/15

www.graduate inst itute.ch/ccdp

33

There is a dramatic disjuncture regardingwhat we think we know, what we reallyknow, and what we want to know aboutthe relationship between humanitarianismand religion. Religious organizations were atthe forefront of humanitarianism in its begin-ning, and it would be a slight exaggerationto say no religion, no humanitarianism. Yetconventional wisdom holds that for much ofthe twentieth century secularism triumphedover religion, within humanitarianism as in

the wider world, only to find a resurgence ofreligion at the centurys end.

What accounts for this pattern? Did religionhibernate? Take on new forms? Becomeembedded in the secular? In this line ofthought, religion has had the same impact onhumanitarianism as it appears to have had onthe rest of the world. Whenever faith-basedinstitutions cross religious boundaries theyseem to run into trouble with local popula-tions, breeding misunderstanding, conflict, andviolence. Christian agencies working among

Muslim populations are accused of waging aholy war, and Muslim agencies working inthe West are accused of exporting Jihad. Yetreligious forces have been instrumental inspreading an ethics of care, and if humani-tarianism is universal then much of the creditprobably owes to the central place of compas-sion in the worlds great religions.

Our collective ignorance regarding the exist-ing relationship between humanitarianismand religion requires urgent attention for

several reasons. Humanitarianism is under-going a third wave of globalization; duringthe first wave, Western aid agencies beganspreading into the far corners of the world,

leading to new kinds of cross-cultural encoun-ters. The second wave witnessed a significantincrease in Western agencies often workingin conflict zones in the developing countries:the consequence of this trend was the attemptby aid agencies to identify common standardsand vocabularies. The third wave has beendefined by a dramatic growth in non-westernhumanitarian agencies. Like all such previouscross-cultural encounters, the consequenceshave included new kinds of challenges, new

forms of competition, and confusion regard-ing whether words and actions have the samemeaning across contexts. These complicationshave been accentuated by religious overtones,particularly because much of the growthin non-Western aid agencies is attributed tothose with an Islamic identity. In the faceof new tensions, there has been a surgeof interest in dialogue and collaboration,which can lead to greater respect but alsocan harden existing suspicions in the process.The relationship between humanitarianismand religion mimics a defining narrative of

contemporary globalization.

Against this setting nearly thirty practitionersfrom secular and faith-based agencies fromaround the world and scholars of humani-tarianism gathered on October 10-11th 2009in Geneva, Switzerland for two days of con-versation on the relationship between human-itarianism and religion. Organized by theUniversity of Minnesota, the Universityof Toronto, the British-based Humanitar-ian Forum, the International Council of

Voluntary Agencies, and the Centre onConflict, Development and Peacebuilding(CCDP) at the Graduate Institute of Inter-national and Development Studies, and

Religion andHumanitarianism:Floating Boundaries in a Globalizing World

Religion, Secularism, and Humanitarianism:Exploring Differences, Boundaries, and Connections


4/15

CCDP Conference Report

4

made possible by a generous grant from theNY-based Luce Foundation, the conferencewas organized around two broad questions.

WDoes religion matter? The humanitariansector operates comfortably with the distinc-tion between faith and secular agencies,assuming but never fully exploring exactlyhow or if religion matters. Attemptingto identify whether and how religion mat-ters is no easy chore, requiring sensitivityto history, place, context, and culture.

WIs religion a hindrance or help to coopera-

tion, collaboration, and partnerships in thehumanitarian sector? The need to act in con-cert has become more intense over the lasttwo decades because of the remarkablegrowth in the population of humanitarianorganizations, especially from the globalSouth, and humanitarianisms expansionfrom relieving symptoms to tackling theroot causes of suffering. Yet cooperation iseasier said than done and the obstacles tocooperation are not merely technical butalso are deeply political and cultural. What

role, if any, does religion play in facilitatingor hindering cooperation?

As expected, the meeting generated few con-clusions and many new and unanticipatedareas of debate and research.1 Based on thememos prepared in advance of the work-shop by the invited scholars and the two-daydialogue, this report identifies three themes:

The ever-changing boundaries betweenreligion and secularism and theomnipresent role of faith;The triumph of religion over secularism;

The elusive search for a common frameworkin a world of diversity.

1 The authors of the report would like to highlight that it was

not expected from all panelists at the conference to agree

that these were the three most important themes, or with ourinterpretation of them. However, they hope to have captured

the vitality, urgency, and necessity of further research and

dialogue on the ever changing relationship between religion

and humanitarianism in world affairs.

RELIGION, SECULARISMAND FAITH

Although religion was always alive and well,many scholars, influenced by various formsof modernization and secularization theory,assumed that secularism had silenced religiousbelief in the public sphere. As scholars came torecognize that their theories did not reflect thelived experience of the majority, they beganto explore the changing boundaries betweenthe religious and the secular, how and whythese boundaries have shifted ground over the

decades, and how the religious and the secularare intertwined. The workshops discussionreflected this more complicated and nuancedunderstanding of the relationship between thereligious and the secular, and three elementsstood out.

No Fixed Relationship

The prevailing assumption is that faith-basedaction differs from secular-based action; buthow? In attempting to identify whether andhow religious identity matters, scholars and

practitioners have offered a range of plausi-ble connections, including its effect on: themotives, principles, ethics and content ofhumanitarian action; the relationship to themeaning and practice of politics and the readi-ness to spearhead social change; the agencysstructure and willingness to adopt modernprinciples of organization; accountability todonors and local communities; and the moraleconomy, including fund raising patterns andportrayal of victims.

Perhaps the clearest differences between

religious and secular organization reside intheir motives and legitimating discourse.Simply put, religious organizations cite Godand secular organizations reference Human-ity. In fact, those participants from religiousorganizations were quite insistent that theydiffer from their secular counterparts withrespect to the sources of inspiration andaction. Those working in Islamic agenciescommented on how the Koran shapes theirpriorities, including providing clean waterand food assistance during Ramadan; influ-

ences their desire to offer an Islamic-versionof micro-finance; and spurs an effort to workwith Islamic scholars to translate principles offaith into development programs. Those from


5/15


5

Christian agencies offered similar observationsregarding the teachings of Jesus Christ. Yeteven on matters of motivation and discoursethe dividing lines were blurrier than expected.Many so-called secular agencies were faithfounded even if they do not currently weartheir religious faith on their sleeves. And,several scholars observed that secular agen-cies also operate with a type of faith and evenwith a discourse that has religious overtones.

Another promising line of argument concernedthe relationship between religious identityand access to local populations. As suggested

by Jonathan Benthalls concept of culturalproximity, the argument is that the culturalproximity between the giver and the recipientis a good predictor of the ability of the giverto gain access to, and be accepted by, the

recipient.2 So, Islamic agencies will have a rel-atively easier time working in a Muslim con-text than will Christian or secular agencies.But, they will have a more difficult time work-ing in the West than will Christian agencies. Infact, the same Western governments who looksuspiciously at Islamic Relief when it is work-ing in the West have come to depend moreheavily on it for distributing aid in the Islamic

world. The impact of cultural proximity is alsolikely to be influenced by the level of insta-bility on the ground and whether aid is beinggiven to a religious minority. For instance,Russia has closed down Islamic Relief twenty-seven times in Chechnya.

Although arguments regarding cultural prox-imity assume that differences between reli-gions matter, Bertrand Taithe suggested thatreligious organizations, because they are reli-gious, will have an easier time than secular

2 Benthall, Jonathan (University College- London), Thoughts on

Cultural Proximity, Memo to the Conference

agencies communicating with local popula-tions, regardless of their religious orienta-tion, because the discourse of religion ismore familiar to most populations than is thediscourse of secular humanism.3 Also, thereis growing evidence that local populationsuse binaries rather than fine-grained distinc-tions to differentiate foreign aid agencies.Whether or not agencies explicitly adopt asecular or faith-based identity often matterslittle for how they are perceived; in many coun-tries secular agencies are sometimes viewed asreligious due merely to their Western identity.For example, some Sudanese viewed Save the

Children as a Christian organization, despitethe agencys professed and constantly publi-cized secular identity. Caroline Abu-Sada wrotethat MSF has experienced similar challenges invarious African contexts because of the beliefthat it is a Western religious organization.4

Although secular aid agencies might feel frus-trated that local populations do not see thedifferences that are so apparent to them, theyneed to acknowledge how they operate in areligious world. The omnipresence of religion

is apparent in several dimensions. BertrandTaithe writes that NGOs intervene in a worldmapped out for the purpose of interventionsby missionaries... they often occupy a simi-lar niche, fulfill similar roles and enter in adialogue with people who have experienceof missionary work.5 In a similar register,Abu-Sada discussed how MSF has encounteredthe legacy of Anglican missionary activity invarious operations; indeed, in many societies,missionaries were the first and only encounterof the local population with Europeans untilthe arrival of MSF.6 Contemporary humani-

tarians are often unaware of how much theirtechnologies owe to missionary activity.7Moreover, secular agencies often work along-side religious agencies, a pattern of fraternalcooperation that can potentially lead localpopulations to assume that they are one and

3 Taithe, Bertrand (University of Manchester), Transparency,

Compassion and Faith, Memo to the Conference

4 Abu-Sada, Caroline (MSF-Switzerland), Reversing

the Optics: How Beneficiaries See Aid Workers,

Memo to the Conference: 4-5

5 Taithe, Bertrand, Op.cit: 8

6 Abu-Sada, Caroline, Op.cit: 4-5

7 Taithe, Bertrand, Op.cit: 8

Simply put, religiousorganizations cite Godand secular organizations

reference Humanity.


6/15


6

the same. Lastly, humanitarians frequentlyoperate in societies in which the religious andthe secular are not at all divided, or divided inthe same way as in the West.

Any differences that might exist betweenreligious and secular agencies also mighthave narrowed over the recent decadesbecause of institutional forces, internationalevents, globalization, and the competitionfor funding.8 Barnett wrote about how theforces of maturation, modernity, and moneyare compelling religious and secular aidagencies to look and act increasingly alike.

Hopgood and Vinjamuri argued that the searchfor money can be a great equalizer. In the UK,for instance, the Charities Act defines trans-parency and accountability for all charities. Inresponse to these memos, many practitionersobserved the homogenizing effects of milita-rization, funding, and geopolitics. Faith-basedorganizations, and especially Muslim agenciesafter September 11, face additional pressuresfrom donor governments to gravitate towardcommon (Western) standards and to join pro-fessional associations such as the International

Council of Voluntary Agencies (ICVA).

9

Theseglobal forces will not have comparable impactson all agencies, and variations in response can

8 Hopgood, Stephen & Vinjamuri, Leslie (School of Oriental and

African Studies- University of London), Faith in Markets,

Memo to the Conference- and Barnett, Michael, Faith in

the Machine? Humanitarianism in a Bureaucratic Age,

Memo to the Conference

9 See Benthall, Jonathan (University College- London),Thoughts on Cultural Proximity, Memo to the Conference,

Hopgood, Stephen & Vinjamuri, Leslie (School of Oriental and

African Studies- University of London), Faith in Markets,

Memo to the Conference: 10-11

be attributed to many factors, including butnot only religious identity.

Creating the Religious and the Secular

Although the distinction between the secularand the religious are rooted in culture, his-tory, and contingency, several participantsnoted how secular and religious agencies havea vested interest in creating and maintain-ing these boundaries. Consider, for instance,the marketing of humanitarianism. For somereligious agencies their religious identityis an effective marketing device and givesthem access to a built-in constituency, while

for secular agencies their nondenominationalcharacter can also be part of the advertisingcampaign. Religious and secular agencies,depending on circumstances, accentuate thesedistinctions in order to gain access to popu-lations in need. The important point is torecognize how aid agencies, by positioningthemselves as religious or secular, help torecreate these same distinctions.

A Surfeit of Faith

Our discussion on the relationship between

religion and secularism in humanitarianismtook a curious turn: it began with the presump-tion that there are clear differences betweenreligious and secular agencies and endedwith a general acceptance that humanitarianorganizations are faith-based in one way oranother. Whether using the language ofcosmopolitanism, the transcendent, the uni-versal, or some other enveloping discourse,most participants agreed that they believedthat there is something bigger than them-selves and that working in humanitarian-ism gives them an opportunity to connect the

immediate and the practical to the divine andthe supernatural. As Barnett wrote, To para-phrase Leo Tolstoys quip about families, allhumanitarian organizations are faith-based but they are faith-based in different ways.We would do well to dispense with the human-itarian sectors all-too-comfortable but mis-leading formulation of faith-based and secularagencies with its presumption that the onlykind of faith is religious faith 10. Paras andStein similarly observed that even secular

10 Barnett, Michael (University of Minnesota), Faith in the Machine?

Humanitarianism in a Bureaucratic Age, Memo to the

Conference: 2

The important pointis to recognize how aidagencies, by positioningthemselves as religious orsecular, help to recreatethese same distinctions.


7/15


7

humanitarian agencies see themselves asdwelling in a moral universe that transcends

the here and now 11. Secularism itself may bethought of as a type of faith.

Faith-based might imply a sign of distinctionwithout carrying a real difference. While it isclear that the humanitarian sector operateswith the distinction between religious andsecular agencies, it is not entirely clear whythis distinction is more important than anyother, be it national identity, mandate, size, orfunding source.

THE TRIUMPH OF RELIGION

Missionaries win, asserted Bertrand Taitheprovocatively. Perhaps no other commentgenerated as many heated debates as thisone. Taithe was referring to how religiousagencies appear to have greater stick-to-itiveness, are prepared to remain in the fieldfor longer periods of time and endure greaterhardship than are secular agencies. This isan instance, he suggested, in which religious

faith translates into concrete commitmentsthat have meaningful consequences.12 Manyparticipants returned to this assertion andused it to make broader points about whyreligious agencies might have more vitalitythan secular agencies; their enduring presenceon the ground, some argued, means that theyare more likely to be trusted, are more likely tobe sensitive to local needs, and are more likelyto be genuinely respectful of local cultures.

11 Paras, Andrea, Stein, Janice and Vipond, Rob (University of

Toronto), The Sanctity of Humanitarian Space: Religious and

Universalist Discourses, Memo to the Conference

12 Taithe, Bertrand, Op.cit

Yet the claim that religion triumphs oversecularism had another dimension; neithersecularism nor humanitarianism can addressthe search for meaning. Secularism and itsliberal counterparts are focused on indivi-dual autonomy, liberty, and equality, butafter the individual is secured there remainsthe gnawing question of the individuals rela-tionship to society, community, and the cos-mos. Humanitarianism is about needs, butonce material needs are provided it says littleabout spiritual needs; Religion fills the void bygiving individuals greater meaning and provid-ing humanitarianism with a sense of purpose.

But it is not only religion that might play thatrole so too might human rights, which isoften called a secular religion. Perhaps onereason why humanitarianism has adopted thelanguage of human rights is because humanrights help to fill a spiritual vacuum. If mis-sionaries win it might be because, contraryto conventional wisdom in the West, religionnever disappeared.

Humanitarianismis about needs,

but once materialneeds are

provided it says

little aboutspiritual needs;Religion fi l ls the

void, so too mighthuman rights,

which are oftencalled a secular

religion.

All humanitarianorganizations arefaith-based but theyare faith-based indifferent ways.


8/15


8

Al Banna, Hany; Humanitarian Forum

Abu-Sada, Caroline; Mdecins Sans Frontires Switzerland

Antoun, Georges; International Orthodox Christian Charities

Argun, Selim; Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief

Barnett, Michael; University of Minnesota

Barras, Amelie; PhD Student, London School of Economics

Benthall, Jonathan; University College London

Bornstein, Erica; University of Wisconsin Milwaukee

Captier, Christian; Mdecins Sans Frontires Switzerland

Gross Stein, Janice; University of Toronto

Hassaballa, Ibrahim; International Islamic Charitable Organization

Hicks, Rosemary; Columbia University

Hirsh, Dean; World Vision International

Hopgood, Stephen; School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London

Jansen, Annette; Independent Humanitarian Policy and Advocacy Advisor

Jtersonke, Oliver; Centre on Conflict, Development and Peacebuilding

Kalckreuth, Georg von; Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies

Karafis, Jamal; Islamic Relief Switzerland

Kennedy, Denis; PhD Student, University of Minessota

Khan Ajaz, Ahmed; Islamic Relief Worldwide

Krause, Jana; Centre on Conflict, Development and Peacebuilding

Mohanna, Kamel;Amel Association Arab NGOs Network

Muti, Abdul; Humanitarian Forum Indonesia

Ndiaye, Mamadou; Office Africain pour le Dveloppement et la Coopration

Ofteringer, Ronald; International Committee of the Red Cross

Paras, Andrea; University of Toronto

Pilar, Ulrike von; Independent consultant for Humanitarian Policy and Practice

Pilegaard, Lisbeth; Norwegian Refugee Council

Rana, Raj; The WolfGroup

Sahin, Izzet; Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief

Schenkenberg, Ed; International Council of Voluntary Agencies

Shublin, Emmanuel; Centre on Conflict, Development and Peacebuilding

Shaw-Hamilton, James; Humanitarian Forum

Taithe, Bertrand; University of Manchester

Thaut, Laura; PhD student, University of Minnesota

Vinjamuri, Leslie; School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London

Volkman, Toby; Luce Foundation

de Waal, Alex; Social Science Research Council

Conference

Participants


9/15


9

AUTHORS AND TOPICS

Abu-Sada, Caroline (MSF-Switzerland). Reversing the Optics: How Beneficiaries See

Aid Workers, presented to the panel Deliverers and Recipients.

Barnett, Michael (University of Minnesota). Faith in the Machine? Humanitarianism

in a Bureaucratic Age, presented to the panel Differing Faith Organizations, Developing in

Similar Ways?

Benthall, Jonathan (University College-London). Cultural Proximity in Humanitarian Aid,presented to the panel Deliverers and Recipients.

Bornstein, Erica (University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee). Garnering Trust: Hindu dan and

Humanitarianism in New Delhi, presented to the panel Differing Faith Organizations,

Developing in Similar Ways?

Hicks, Rosemary (Columbia University). Needs and Rights in Humanitarian Action,

presented to the panel Belief, Faith and Religion.

Hopgood, Stephen & Vinjamuri, Leslie (School of Oriental and African Studies,

University of London). Religious and Secular NGOs and the Marketing of Humanitarianism,

presented to the panel Differing Faith Organizations, Developing in Similar Ways?

Jansen, Annette. Drawn by Disasters: Why the Human Rights Movement Struggles with

Good News Stories.

___. Towards an Anthropological Analysis of the Human Rights Worldview.

Paras, Andrea & Gross Stein, Janice (University of Toronto). The Sacred Space of

Humanitarianism, presented to the panel Deliverers and Recipients.

Taithe, Bertrand (University of Manchester). Transparency, Compassion, and Faith,

presented to the panel Belief, Faith and Religion.

de Waal, Alex (Social Science Research Council). The Problem of Evil in Secular Humanitarian

and Human Rights Discourse, presented to the panel Belief, Faith and Religion.

Memos


10/15


10

UNITY AMIDST DIVERSITY?

One reason why those in the practitionercommunity are keen to convene cross-culturaldialogue is because of the desire to find com-mon ground. Workshop participants identifiedthree frameworks for unity a humanitarianethic, human rights, and technical knowledge.In each case, though, there was a countervailingdemand to recognize the false grail of universal-ism and the importance of diversity.

A Humanitarian Ethic

Many in the humanitarian sector claim that

humanitarianism, understood as the desire toprovide life-saving assistance to those in direneed, is truly universal. It reflects a commit-ment to an ethic of compassion, which can befound in all cultures, religions, and traditions,and a devotion to an ethic of humanity, inwhich all are equal and equally deserving ofassistance. These ethics, in turn, inform thehumanitarian principle of impartiality and,with it, the secondary principles of independ-ence and neutrality.

Yet many at the workshop challenged this con-

clusion on the ground that not only is thereno global consensus but Western aid agenciesdisagree among themselves regarding themeaning and principles of humanitarianism.The International Committee of the Red Cross(ICRC) defends a meaning of humanitarianism the provision of life saving, relief and emer-gency aid , which has lost out to a more expan-sive vision of humanitarianism that includesthe attempt to tackle the root causes of suf-fering. Christian and Islamic agencies wereunited in their belief that humans have material

and spiritual needs and that humanitarian-ism must include various forms of interven-tions to end human suffering. Erica Bornsteinargued that other non-Abrahamic traditions

such as the Hindu tradition of dan informs aview of humanitarianism as a disinterestedgift without expectation of return.13 Simi-larly, many participants agreed that there isno consensus on the principles of humanitari-anism. While some insisted that impartialityhas a universal status, others suggested that thepractice of impartiality is culturally conditioned.Greater disagreement manifested on the prin-ciple of neutrality; some elevated neutrality tothe same plane as impartiality, while otherscontended that it is highly context dependentand perhaps even impossible, especially foragencies who want to bear witness and demon-

strate solidarity with victims. One participantnoted that a recent survey of NGOs revealeda diversity of interpretations of humanity,neutrality, and independence. In general, theethics and principles of humanitarianism derivefrom particular configurations of moral, ethical,and religious understandings of humanitarian-ism, often evolving from a negotiation betweenhumanitarian agencies, both secular and reli-gious alike, and those in political power.

Human Rights

Several practitioners reflected on how theirorganizations are able to universalize humani-tarianism through the discourse of human rights.They spoke of how human rights have ascendedto universal status and how organizations areable to overcome differences over values byappealing to human rights. The possibility thathuman rights might unify what humanitarian-ism could not surprised many participants forseveral reasons. The humanitarian discourse, incomparison to the human rights one, is anchoredin a language of needs and seems a more promis-ing platform for universal standing. The language

of human rights is closely associated with vari-ous forms of cultural imperialism. Moreover, thecontemporary international rights discourse hasJudeo-Christian roots even if there is evidenceof cross-cultural agreement on some aspects ofrights. One participant speculated that if practi-tioners began to specify these rights they wouldencounter many disagreements over meaning.

13 Bornstein, Erica (University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee),

Garnering Trust: Hindu Dan and Humanitarianism in New Delhi,

Memo to the Conference

Western aid agencies

disagree amongthemselves regardingthe meaning and principlesof humanitarianism.


11/15


11

Humanitarian agencies and human rightsagencies have clashed over the last two dec-ades as, according to many relief agencies, thelogic of rights has altered the logic of needs.Along these lines, Alex de Waal argued thatthe Calvinist moral logic of human rightsdeploys a discourse of good and evil, assumingthat its imperatives are ethically and analyti-cally superior to other demands for action.14As the Darfur case illustrates, he continued,the discourse of human rights can foreclosepossible responses. Once grassroots activistsframed Darfur as a human rights emergencyand the killings as genocide, they became com-

mitted to military action and the InternationalCriminal Courts involvement regardless ofthe dynamics of the conflict and whether anindictment would jeopardize a political solu-tion in Darfur and in South Sudan. To criticizethe activists interpretation of events and theirremedies, it appeared, was to situate oneselfon the wrong side of history.

A Modern Sector

Religious and secular agencies also expressedthe belief that the modernization of the sectormight create a common ground. The humani-tarian sector has modernized over the lastseveral decades, becoming more bureaucraticand routinized in how it operates in the world,professionalizing, and rationalizing with thecreation of common rules to regulate theiractivities. Participants repeatedly pointed tothe ability of the codes of conduct, Sphere,professional training, and mechanisms ofaccountability to overcome differences once

14 Ibid

defined by values. In short, the modernizationof the sector was depoliticizing humanitarian-ism, turning what were once highly politicaland value-laden disputes into disagreementsthat could potentially be settled by objec-tive metrics. This process of depoliticizationthrough technical standards does not removethe presence of values, it only alters theirappearance.

Yet many participants questioned the capac-ity of techniques, codes, standards, and meas-ures to help them overcome cultural divides.For instance, everyone agreed on the impor-

tance of the concept of accountability butthere was little agreement on how to accom-modate the diversity of meanings. For someit means being transparent regarding theiractions. For others it means providing clearand accurate financial statements deliveredto donors, or taking into account those whomight be affected by their actions. No agencyobjected to the desirability of evidence-basedprograms, but they did not agree on whatshould be the policy priorities, and someworried that the emphasis on measurement

would lead to the neglect of intangibles such aswitnessing and solidarity. Professionalizationand bureaucratization cannot always accom-modate deeply cherished values; several par-ticipants from religious agencies worried thatthese modern principles might compromisetheir religious commitments. There was theadditional question of whether the very sameprocess of standardization that helps produceinteragency collaboration might also creategreater distance between the experts andlocal populations.

In addition to such questions, others chal-lenged the assumption that conflict overvalues is truly an obstacle to cooperation.Many practitioners suggested that they havelittle trouble cooperating with those from otheragencies, including those from other religions,when they are working in the field. (Oneparticipant from an Islamic agency noted thatthe ability of different religious organizationto work together provided a role modelfor local populations in Bosnia). Humani-tarianism is a practically-minded project;

practitioners had various tales from the fieldin which religion seldom figured prominently.Instead, more traditional, mundane, andworldly concerns came to the fore, including

The possibility thathuman rights might unify

what humanitarianismcould not surprised manyparticipants.


12/15


12

personality conflict, turf protection, competi-tion for resources and status, and the lack oftime to efficiently tackle a project.

Many of the participants spoke of the impor-tance of tolerance, humility, modesty, andrespect. Humanitarians need to recognize thatwhen they enter into a foreign country theirability to help is dependent on their ability tolisten and learn. Tolerance and respect, more-over, are not the same. Tolerance, observesthe political theorist Wendy Brown, can be

a euphemism for our aversions: when wereally do not like something but feel the needto live-and-let-live, we tend to use the languageof tolerance.15 In other words, I might notlike you but I will tolerate you. As one par-ticipant put it, respect means seeing anotherperson like a human being, and not seeingoneself as superior.

15 Brown, Wendy, Regulating Aversion: Tolerance in an Age of

Identity and Empire, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008

The modernization of the sector wasdepoliticizing humanitarianism, turning what

were once highly political and value-ladendisputes into disagreements that couldpotentially be settled by objective metrics.

Conference Participants


13/15


13

CONCLUSIONS ANDBEGINNINGS

Every question posed about the relationshipbetween religion and humanitarianism gener-ated several other questions and, by the endof the workshop, we had a roomful of ques-tions for further research; what are the differ-ent kinds of faith that exist and how, when,and why do they translate into meaningfuldifferences? How does faith interact with otherfactors to shape the behavior of aid agenciesand converging and diverging trends that we

see in the sector? Is faith the crucial variable,or is it all about the availability of funds? Howdo the varied interpretations of the boundariesbetween the religious and the secular affectthe possibility of cross-cultural cooperationand understanding? Both when it is presentand when it is absent, it shapes the opportuni-ties for collaboration. Where should we startto try and tease out these differences? Arecertain issues particularly instructive for bet-ter understanding the relationship betweenreligion and humanitarianism?

On another note, although there was littlemention of gender, a comparison of aid agen-cies on issues pertaining to gender might helpus better understand how different kinds offaith are translated into action. Other subjects,many of which touch on questions of sexual-ity, personal conduct, and cultural norms, alsoappear to be particularly interesting avenuesof further discussion; topics like HIV/AIDSand reproductive health are areas of consider-able controversy among many religious agen-cies and among devout populations. Are there

particular cases and episodes that might beparticularly illuminating?

A particularly important question is: howshould those in the humanitarian sector findconsensus? To what extent can discoursesof ethics, human rights, and professionalstandards create a common ground? Whatare their limits? What other areas might servea unifying function? How can aid agenciesbalance the search for common groundwith respect for difference? How will such

decisions affect the prospects of coopera-tion? How should the conversation across aidagencies be structured? According to whatprinciples? Some cross-cultural encounters,

especially in professionalized sectors, are lessof a dialogue among equals than they are anopportunity for the established elite to teachinitiates the rules of the club. Can agenciesavoid being paternalistic? What if aid agenciesemphasize the quality of the dialogue itselfrather than whether it leads to a preconceivedset of standards?

To better understand these issues, practition-ers and scholars will have to work together.Agencies have a wealth of data and experiencebut they lack the resources or time to reflectsystematically and rigorously on the past.

Scholars, on the other hand, have certain skillsets but often do not have an understanding ofthe richness of the history and the changingcomplexity of relations from place to place.This meeting brought together an interestingcross-section of the humanitarian and schol-arly communities, but future conversationswould benefit from including missionaries,human rights activists, scholars of religion,and religious agencies that extend outsidethe Christian and Muslim orbit. It is criticalthat these conversations also take place in the

global South and include local practitionersand scholars.

To betterunderstand

the link betweenHumanitarianism

and Religion,practitioners

and scholars willhave to work

together.


14/15


14

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Michael Barnett is the Harold Stassen Chair of International Relations at the Humphrey Instituteof Public Affairs and Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota,

Denis Kennedy is a PhD Candidate in Political Science at the University of Minnesota,

Janice Stein is the Belzberg Professor of Conflict Management in the Department of PoliticalScience and Director of the Munk Centre for International Studies at the University of Toronto,

Laura Thaut is a PhD Student in Political Science at the University of Minnesota.

The CCDP is a research centre of the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studiesin Geneva, Switzerland. It aims to offer policy relevant research built upon strong academicfoundations on a variety of themes and issues, including: peacebuilding and reconciliation;post-conflict transitions and state-building; armed violence and development; and multi-stakeholderinitiatives and the politics of monitoring and evaluation. The CCDP also participates in andsupports a variety of outreach initiatives, including training modules, lectures and briefings,publications and other activities designed to disseminate the fruits of its research projects torelevant stakeholders beyond the academic community.

CCDP Conference Reports result from conferences and events hosted and organized by the centre.Their aim is to secure the findings and opportunities for further research discussed during

the conference.

For more information, please visit www.graduateinstitute.ch/ccdp

The conference was hosted by the Centre on Conflict, Development and Peacebuilding (CCDP)at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, Switzerland.

The conference was organized in partnership withUniversity of Minnesota, www.umn.eduUniversity of Toronto, www.utoronto.caHumanitarian Forum, www.humanitarianforum.org

International Council of Voluntary Agencies, www.icva.ch

The conference was funded by a generous grant from the New York-based Luce Foundation,www.hluce.org


15/15

Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies132, rue de Lausanne

P.O. Box 1361211 Geneva 21SwitzerlandE-mail: [email protected]: http://www.graduateinstitute.ch/ccdp

Date post:	05-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	irenapandeva
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

Humanitarianism and Religion

Documents