Abstract
Many of us have read Lords of Poverty: The Trouble with Africa and Dead Aid – approachable, popular and emotive books that question and challenge the politics of the aid system. Although The Aid Triangle falls under the same category of books, it is not just another thought provoking book on the politics of aid. Through this book the authors seek to present a much needed social psychological framework to critically analyse the current aid system. They seek to offer a new paradigm for how we understand and approach aid – a paradigm that considers the human dynamics of dominance, justice and identity. One of the key arguments of the book is that ‘if the very system of international aid creates relationships between people that perpetuate the inequalities it is actually meant to address, then “trying to help” does harm’ (p. 11). This makes the book particularly relevant to anyone working in the field of development, right from the young volunteer who is about to get his or her first experience of ‘development work’ to the experienced aid worker who is already entrenched within the aid system.
Needless to say, developing an argument that aid, in its current form and system, can in fact do more harm than good, is both controversial and ambitious. But through a thorough and evidence-based discussion of the human dynamics of dominance, justice and identity in the aid industry, the authors successfully manage to place people and their interactions at the centre of development. By looking at the complex and power-dominated relationship that exists between providers and recipients of aid, the authors argue that the current system of aid comes with a high social psychological cost – namely injustice and broken identities – that undermines current efforts in development. In scrutinizing the habits and practices of aid providers and the impact these have on recipients of aid, the book confronts a number of taboos in the aid system; raising key questions that will make any development worker question his or her profession. The authors argue that meaningful and effective development can only be achieved if aid professionals begin to consider the mechanisms of dominance, justice and identity and engage more reflectively with their profession.
Looking beyond the many confusing metaphors often used by authors, the book is well written. It provides a superb introduction, capturing the reader’s thirst for what is about to come. Working in the field of health and development myself, both as an academic and as a practitioner who assists with the running of a non-governmental organization in Kenya, I was intrigued by the controversial questions posed in the book and thoroughly enjoyed being challenged.
On the whole I agree with the core arguments presented in the book; however I felt that the empirical evidence and the examples provided were sometimes disjointed and resonated perhaps too much with the varied work carried out by the three authors themselves – with a particular focus on organizational psychology. While the evidence provided in the book is relevant and compelling, their diversity made it harder to grasp the overarching arguments as they were being developed. It may just be a personal preference, but I would have preferred to read a discussion about dominance, injustice and identity in the aid industry through a case study, as could have been done by integrating an organizational ethnography into the book. Campbell’s (2003) book Letting Them Die, also provides a compelling case study for a social psychology of aid and discusses many of the issues raised in this book.
To illustrate briefly some of the key arguments that the authors develop, I will present a fictitious case study of female circumcision in Kenya. The authors argue that aid is more often than not driven by intellectual Dominance, or the ‘knowing what is best for development’, so that is where I will begin. Reflecting the ‘knowing what is best for development’ attitude, it is a requirement of many development programmes to be sensitive to gender inequities and promote women’s rights. Female circumcision is one such area of focus; however it is often discussed under the term female genital mutilation. This change of name illustrates a moral judgement that aid workers have of this practice, a practice that they know as harmful, a symbol of female oppression and against women’s rights and will have to be discontinued – all under the name of development. I am by no means endorsing female circumcision and appreciate that as a ritual it is indicative of gender inequities that compromise the overall quality of life for Maasai women (just another example of how intellectual dominance creeps in!), but the framework, or social psychology of aid, presented in this book would encourage the aid worker to take a step back and to be reflective about whose values are being listened to in the development of programmes. This can have important consequences for how a programme is being received by local people. For example, if aid workers, driven by a human rights discourse, want to challenge gender roles within a Maasai community and focus on ‘female genital mutilation’ because of its symbolism of male domination and potential consequences of newborn and maternal health poor health, they are not likely to be well received by the local community and have any success with their programme. In fact, the Maasai community may see it as an attack of their culture and they may achieve the opposite through what the authors refer to as ‘reactance’ – a term which means that people do the opposite of what a constraining system tells them (p. 93). However, if an aid worker seeks to learn from the community and accepts that the ritual is considered an important rite of passage within the Maasai community, he or she can constructively work with members of that community to address related health issues and perhaps challenge gender roles in the process. The aid worker may learn that the community re-uses surgical blades or that water used during the procedure is from a contaminated water source. The aid worker may not personally accept the practice, but by providing the community with new surgical blades and clean water is not passing judgement and can therefore work constructively with the community to address the aspects of the ritual that can result in genital infections. The trust developed (as a result of mutual respect) can open up for opportunities that would not otherwise be possible. While working with the community, the aid workers may be approached by a group of women with whom they have developed a rapport and who share their discontent about the practice and marginalized position. Together they can work out a broader strategy on (1) how this ritual can be phased out and (2) how to enhance the lives of Maasai women more generally. Its discontinuation is likely to meet resistance from both men and women in the community, but through dialogue and the increasing buy-in of many community members, the community may be able to work out a less intrusive form of circumcision or even the abolition of female circumcision as alternative rites of passage are developed. But this long-term process needs to be carefully negotiated and not be imposed by someone who visits the community in a big 4x4 vehicle and tells them that ‘genital mutilation’ and their current social system is oppressing women and that the practice needs to stop.
In relation to Identity, if an aid worker enters a Maasai community and challenges their culture by telling all the women that they are victims of a brutal practice, this has the potential to taint the women’s sense of self and their identities. The women may begin to see themselves as oppressed, and can either accept their victimological status (because they do not have the power and control to do anything about it) or challenge those who endorse the practice, with the risk of being shunned out of the community. Either way, aid organizations, through their intellectual dominance, can engender serious reactions through their interference with culture. If however, aid organizations worked in partnership with local women, as in the example given above, they may in fact facilitate an empowering and more positive identity that can enhance the lives of Maasai women.
The above example illustrates some of the key arguments of the book in relation to the interaction between aid providers and aid recipients. However, the book also gives great detail on how international organizations are run and discusses some of the internal dynamics that may compromise their effectiveness. One topic receiving much attention, and relating to Justice, is pay discrepancies, or ‘economic apartheid’ (p. 78) between expatriates and local staff – with expatriates being paid considerably more than their local counterparts. The authors argue this has a negative impact on the job satisfaction of local staff as well as the effectiveness of the organizations as communication between expatriates and local staff is likely to be influenced by this injustice. The pay difference may contribute to the expatriate’s sense of superiority (‘I am paid more, maybe I am worth more’), which can compromise the kind of help he or she may get from local counterparts, who may think ‘you’re the expert, you solve the problem!’ (p. 73).
The book covers a large array of issues characteristic of the aid industry. While reading the book I constantly found myself engaging with the debates, probably fed by the irony that I was reading the book while staying in hotels in Nairobi and Harare on work-related trips! Perhaps as a natural defence mechanism I automatically critically evaluated the claims put forward by the authors and immediately sought to justify, or come up with excuses as to why the aid system is the way it is. Like myself, many aid workers struggle with the questions posed by the authors, and in their discussion of Dominance, the authors argue that aid workers who live in affluent neighbourhoods or stay in fancy hotels, but work with and witness people in dire poverty, naturally develop such defence mechanisms in order to function effectively. The authors however argue that rather than being compelled to treat differences as an encounter of different worlds, aid workers need to think about whether their presence is contributing to this disparity. While I agree with the authors, the idea of treating a counter-argument as a defence mechanism may be one of the key weaknesses of the book. Even as the authors acknowledge counter-arguments in their book, they often brush them away as mythological and this can come across as condescending and compromise the integrity of an otherwise very important argument.
Nevertheless, the book most certainly got me thinking in that direction and even if the ideal aid system is utopian, there is no doubt that the reflexivity that the book facilitates, which is what the authors hope to achieve and put forward as a recommendation in their concluding chapter, is an important step in challenging the current system and moving towards a more equitable aid system.