Challenging the Western Approach to Advocacy, Part 2

This week, am asking people I respect a tremendous amount to weigh in on some of the more contentious humanitarian issues, everything from the costs and benefits of advocacy to the question of neutrality and legitimacy.

Today's contributor is Neha Erasmus - her posts critique how many western-based organizations undertake advocacy.  Part 1 is here, and Part 3 is here.

For musings from this week's other contributors, see here

Challenging the western approach to advocacy, part 2

I think advocacy organisations must first think deeply about the issues and the specifics of each situation, rather than positioning their viewpoints through the lens of the standard codified human rights ethics (which are man made and therefore not perfect). Clinging to a set ideology without deep thought becomes pedagogy.

There are two kinds of knowledge: knowledge through philosophy and knowledge through experience. Both are intimately linked and greatly inform each other.

Often these advocacy organisations engage in advocacy without undertaking in-depth critical research and without working in-country with the people they advocate for (there are also a number of system-related issues with those that do engage in research and in-country work, which creates barriers to undertaking these effectively).

While there is an ‘economy’ to this setup, there is also a critical loss to such specialisation: these organisations often live such separate lives from the people they aim to support, that it is almost impossible for them to understand the subtleties and complexities of problems and therefore know what the best ways of supporting issues or people are.

How can I truly understand the myriad of problems people face in having access to water for example, if I never experienced the lack myself?

Secondly, I think that organisations should never seek to simplify, sensationalise or market issues. Marketing tactics generally only work (if they work at all) in the short term, until the next big issue comes along.

One of the great achievements of Obama’s campaign, and a reason it was so successful, was that they spoke to people intelligently. They discussed complex issues with everyone and raised the bar for political campaigning. Unsurprisingly, people stepped up to the challenge and seriously engaged with the issues and more importantly, they are continuing to do so. In addition, marketing and packaging campaigns based on the suffering of others is, as Anne Bartlett writes, exploitative.

Simplifying suffering also creates victim-oppressor narratives and analysis and consequently generates victim focussed approaches to alleviating suffering. The great philosopher Swami Vivekananda wrote, on the solution of Indian philosophy, that “we are not bound, we are free already… as soon as you say ‘I am bound’, ‘I am weak’, ‘I am helpless’… you rivet one more chain upon yourself”.

Speaking about the strength of Darfurians and the ways in which they exercise power to help themselves, is as important as highlighting the suffering they have endured, so that people can understand how to help their efforts, not create new efforts that bypass these latent strengths.

Third, I think the advocacy sector must practice what they preach. If they want people to listen and learn, they should be willing to do the same. Rather than working one-way to achieve their campaign goals, they should be having conversations both outside and inside their respective organisations, stimulating a process of continuous dialogue. It’s amazing the insights one can gain through discussing issues with individuals or groups.

[Photo from Neha Erasmus]