Adopting a radical stance in politics can be difficult, as it can be easily exploited by opponents. But if we look beyond the caricatures and the recuperation, radicalism is above all an attribute of a clear political project. And the numerous challenges currently facing humanity are too important for us not to demand some political clarity. Faced with soaring inequality, rampant commercialisation of the commons, climate change, environmental degradation, democratic setbacks, fascistic tendencies and the growing risk of a large-scale global conflict, progressives have no choice but to be radical. If they are not radical, the other side – the reactionaries – will be. And it has to be said that they already are, in their own way. Clothed in the trappings of respectability, but leaving no doubt about their real intentions.

Radicalism, nevertheless, only makes political sense if it is rooted in reality. It is only an idealistic posture if it is not based on a materialistic reading and characterisation of what exists. Radicalism is impossible without taking a clear stance on capitalism, and neoliberalism, which is the form that capitalism has taken since the 1980s. It would be too long and complicated to explain the origins of neoliberalism here, but it is important to underline what it implies and how it manifests itself: the extension of commerce to every sphere of society and every aspect of life, the globalisation of production and the extension of competition. None of this is the result of the ‘natural’ evolution of capitalism. Neoliberalism needs institutions, standards, incentives and the facilitating role of states. According to the philosopher Pierre Dardot and the sociologist Christian Laval, the great strength of neoliberalism is that it manages to impose the standards and rules that it needs, thus making it ‘a global mindset which extends and imposes capitalist logic on all social relations until it becomes the very form of our lives’, or in other words, a ‘total social fact’[1]. That something has an impact on every aspect of society is not necessarily problematic in itself, but it is problematic if this happens against the will of individuals and populations. Because there is something totalitarian about neoliberalism, something akin to totalitarianism.

This is significant given the recent history of humanitarian action. Having grown out of the ‘without borders’ movement, its roots are in the anti-totalitarianism that was in vogue in the 1970s.  An anti-totalitarianism that it deliberately used to discredit Third-Worldism which its critics described at the time as an avatar of communism. In the middle of the Cold War, humanitarianism helped the capitalist side to regain a moral advantage while neoliberalism was set to become hegemonic. The historical convergence of the ‘without borders’ movement and neoliberalism means that they are inextricably linked, a development that was made possible by the intellectual environment at that time. Humanitarianism needs to be understood within the new world economic order that began to be put in place in the 1980s. The end of the Cold War then definitively sealed the ties between humanitarianism and neoliberalism, the former becoming the latter’s faithful travelling companion.

When humanitarianism rhymes with neoliberalism

With the inclusion of social rights within a purely humanitarian approach, an uninhibited relationship with the profit-making private sector and the use of apparently neutral, but ideologically charged concepts, some of which have been emptied of their subversive potential, (resilience, empowerment, human capital…), the permeability of the humanitarian sector to the influence and interests of neoliberalism is no longer in doubt in 2023. Of course, despite links with particular right-wing circles in the 1980s, the humanitarian sector – taken as a whole – cannot be blamed for its affiliation with neoliberalism. On the other hand, we can criticise humanitarian NGOs for not being aware of this connection, for not attempting to free themselves from it, and, as neoliberal capitalism is akin to a form of totalitarianism, for simply renouncing their past. Humanitarian NGOs should therefore approach their interventions from an anti-neoliberal point of view. But are they even capable of doing so? Does their doctrine allow them to? Neoliberal rationality has permeated the humanitarian sector to such an extent that inventing a new way of thinking about humanitarian issues will not be an easy task. Humanitarian NGOs will have to go to great lengths to do so.

The humanitarian sector views the world in terms of principles and concepts (for example, humanitarian principles, humanitarian space and the humanitarian-development nexus) which guide its actions and to which it gives specific meaning. Of course, the initial conception of the humanitarian doctrine was a driving force during the Cold War and certainly allowed humanitarian NGOs to establish a happy medium between the two opposing camps at that time. However, today, faced with the triumph of neoliberalism and the absence of critical thinking, we might ask whether the humanitarian doctrine has become an ideology in the pejorative sense that the Italian Communist thinker Antonio Gramsci sometimes used the term, as in “a dogmatic system of absolute and eternal truths”[2]. As early as 1992, Rony Brauman warned of the risk of humanitarianism, the transformation of humanitarian doctrine into an ideology[3]. Humanitarian aid depoliticises – this is the main point that it has in common with neoliberalism. It decontextualises situations of human suffering, it denies those involved the status of political subjects, and it abandons the idea of social change. The inability of the humanitarian sector to renew its own doctrine allows neoliberalism to extend its logic to humanitarian action, to such an extent that it is not an exaggeration to speak of neoliberal humanitarianism. The genuine ontological characteristics of neoliberal humanitarianism are difficult to ascertain, which no doubt explains the most common reactions to it within humanitarian NGOs, that is to say, denial or pragmatism, or even sometimes approval.

However, though these are the most frequent and firmly rooted positions, others are beginning to emerge that question the status quo, as Pascal Revault, Expertise and Advocacy Director at Action Contre la Faim, rightly pointed out at the last Autumn School on Humanitarian Aid. Even though those concerned still do not usually have any say in these matters, we are starting to see a gradual change in the sociology of humanitarian NGO activists which reflects the global issues of the day. The guardians of the humanitarian ‘temple’ do not try to refute what these people are saying because they consider it to be background noise or just a form of activism with no future. Nevertheless, a certain activist fringe is trying to impose concepts such as ecofeminism and agroecology, to name but two, in humanitarian debates. And regardless of what one might think of these notions, which are not necessarily new, they at least have the huge merit of linking different situations to oppression and exploitation (the economic exploitation of women, the exploitation of resources, etc.) and therefore creating a completely different type of relationship with the capitalist system, with a view to emancipation. Exactly how widespread these changes are is difficult to establish precisely, but there does seem to be a growing appetite for radicalism among humanitarian workers in stark contrast to the usual institutional inertia and faint-heartedness. Such a discrepancy not only raises questions about the legitimacy and representativity of the governing bodies of the main humanitarian organisations, all too often locked away in their ivory towers, it also means that challenging the current humanitarian doctrine is now possible.

Towards the (impossible…) renewal of humanitarian aid?

There is already growing awareness that neoliberal humanitarianism is an ideological dead end, but the road will probably be strewn with obstacles, the end destination is uncertain and those who contest the status quo are likely to be ostracised given how depoliticised, self-satisfied and sure of itself the sector has become. It will not be enough to get rid of nonsense like neutrality, even though this is among the changes that are absolutely necessary. If we accept that the humanitarian sector is as neutral as it says it is, this is not because it is in its nature to be neutral, but because numerous internal and external factors have ended up neutralising it. Indeed, a revised humanitarian doctrine should recognise the social value of the people concerned, activate their political condition, and engage in genuine political solidarity with social movements involved in the struggle against the dominant way of thinking (such as trade union, feminist and indigenous movements). It should also be firmly rooted in local civil society and should embrace new values (social justice, the commons, the ‘care’ approach, etc.). This raises two major questions. Purists and those in favour of a classical approach might ask, if such a transformation were to take place, would the end result still be humanitarian action? And can this transformation be carried out by humanitarian NGOs themselves?

To conclude, we need to remember that it is capitalism, in its different forms (neoliberalism, imperialism, etc.) which causes the majority of so-called humanitarian crises. Such a statement is not the result of ideological blindness, but rather is based on observation and understanding of what is actually happening. ‘Catastrophist’ rhetoric that does not address political aspects often only serves to help swallow the capitalist pill, while giving a positive connotation to concepts such as risk reduction, adaptation and resilience. Because ‘crises’ cannot resolve themselves within the system that has caused them, their humanitarian consequences will no doubt continue to get worse. And this will happen despite the responses that are implemented, with varying results, within a framework that capitalism tolerates, but which feeds the rhetoric of victimhood and encourages postures that are purely moralistic.  Given the existential threats facing humanity, there is a major risk for aid sector NGOs that they will end up simply as actors of a humanitarian eschatology similar to disturbing survivalist theories. In order to reduce this risk, could humanitarian NGOs who have emerged from the without borders movement openly campaign for a coherent form of anticapitalism? Could they adapt their actions so that they contribute to subverting capitalist social relations and instigating new social relations? Given that their history is intimately linked with that of neoliberalism, given the majority of their intellectual champions and founding fathers, and given the composition of some of their Boards of Directors still today, there is, unfortunately, reason to doubt that these things could happen. If they did, such an ideological turnaround would have the very special flavour of the unexpected. Because the humanitarianisation of the whole planet is morally unacceptable, the radicalisation of the humanitarian sector seems essential. But it is likely that this will raise the question of transcending humanitarianism. This is what will be at stake in the debates and in the years ahead.

[1] Pierre Dardot et Christian Laval, Ce cauchemar qui n’en finit pas. Comment le néolibéralisme défait la démocratie, La Découverte, 2016, p. 11.

[2] Antonio Gramsci, ‘Historicité de la philosophie de la praxis’, Cahiers de prison, in Textes choisis, Le Temps des Cerises, 2014 (1983), p. 209-213.

[3] Rony Brauman, ‘Contre l’humanitarisme’, CRASH, 1 June 1992. https://www.msf-crash.org/fr/publications/guerre-et-humanitaire/contre-lhumanitarisme