A lexicon for a new culture of solidarity

The major investments made in the last three decades to improve aid quality have been motivated by a sincere desire to contribute to the well-being of individuals whose lives have been affected by crises of all kinds. These efforts have been driven by genuine solidarity and a desire to be close to those in need. They are an expression of humanity that is consistent with the very meaning and essence of humanitarian action.

And yet, these efforts have contributed to making the international aid system more rigid – while experience from the field has shown how essential flexibility is to meet the needs caused by crises. Humanitarians are committed to increasing accountability towards affected people by listening better, being more respectful and meeting their needs more effectively. But accountability approaches often create cumbersome procedures that can end up as ‘box-ticking’ exercises. Quality approaches often make aid more technocratic, which can stifle human relations.¹

The general discourse within the sector on ‘participation’ – which has been in fashion for more than twenty years – and attempts to adopt ‘participatory approaches’, show that there is a desire for more ‘horizontal’ relations between aid organisations and beneficiaries. However, this also shows the intrinsically top-down nature of the paradigm in which all operators take action: NGOs, donors, local institutions, civil society organisations, and populations. If one participates in something, it is, by definition, external to oneself. It is clear that the ‘participation revolution’ is going round in circles. The same is true of the discourse on localisation: you can only localise something if it is brought in from elsewhere. What is being done to build on what already exists and to adopt genuinely locally-led approaches?²

Humanitarian language betrays the fact that we are prisoners of a paradigm that we want to escape from. This language is beginning to be criticised³ and more and more voices are being raised to denounce the colonialism, paternalism and even racism that are inherent to the humanitarian model as it has unfolded over the decades.⁴ These are strong, destabilising words that naturally can offend – or even hurt – the individuals who work body and soul to help men and women in distress, sometimes losing their lives, or at least their health, in doing so.

How do we break this vicious circle?

When we are aiming to transform a system (whatever it may be), it is common to focus on the structures, policies and procedures on which it is based. However, experience shows that changing structures, policies and procedures rarely leads to the changes that are desired (such as increasing the quality of an operation or improving accountability). Why ? Because the human dynamics involved are not taken into account. The work of Myron Rogers and Margaret Wheatley might provide keys to unlock this situation. John Atkinson writes this about their work: ‘Myron suggests we should spend our leadership attention on identity, information and relationships. That this creates an environment of trust, which in turn ensures we address the appropriate rather than historical actions and that together this will make work in the public service altogether more meaningful for those involved.’⁵

So, if we want to rebuild the humanitarian sector and abandon this ‘top-down’ (not to say colonialist) approach, it is not enough to revise our structures, policies and procedures. We have to question our identities, the nature of the relationships between actors, and the way that information circulates in the system. We therefore have to include the cultural context and the power structures that forge our identities, our relationships and the information that we produce/interpret, given the extent to which the colonial/post-colonial context in which the humanitarian system developed at the end of the 20th century remains a determining factor.

The redefinition of our identities, the evolution of our relationships and the transformation of information will require in-depth work at the individual, institutional and cultural levels. An analysis of this kind goes beyond the scope of the present article, but we can already concentrate on the language that we use, because changing how we speak could help us to become more conscious of certain aspects of our identity and our relationships, and thus lead to certain changes…

Below is a new lexicon that could help a new paradigm for the solidarity sector to emerge. It is nevertheless essential to point out that a change in vocabulary is far from being enough, particularly if it is used to mask persistent vertical and paternalistic relations. These new words can not replace the institutional, structural and cultural changes that need to take place. But they might help to revise the ‘mindset’ and ‘heartset’ with which each individual engages in solidarity-based relations. Because the more we change individually, the more we will be able to change the bodies and organisations that we are part of.

To conclude, it is important to underline that this kind of approach and vocabulary is already common in certain spheres, such as cooperation between local civil society or governmental institutions, whether in France or in the ‘South’. Opportunities for learning therefore already exist. For my part, I believe that, in the future, relations of solidarity should be guided by three values or attitudes: the ability to listen, to be present and to share.

Charlotte Dufour is member of Groupe URD’s Governing Board and co-founder of Listening Inspires.

1. See issue 20 of Humanitarian Aid on the Move on ‘agility’: https://www.urd.org/fr/revue_humanitaires/humanitaire-en-mouvement-n20/
2. See issue 23 of Humanitarian Aid on the Move: https://www.urd.org/fr/revue_humanitaires/humanitaires-en-mouvement-n23/
3. See the article by Tammam Aloudat, « The Damage aid workers can do with just their words », 27 March 2021 (https://www.thenationalnews.com/opinion/comment/the-damage-aid-workers-can-do-with-just-their-words-1.1190907).
4. A list of resources on the subject are compiled here: https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/feature/2022/08/12/Decolonising-aid-a-reading-and-resource-list
5. John Atkinson, Total Place: a practitioner’s guide to doing things differently, p. 14-15.