In his 1949 inauguration speech, Harry Truman declared that some areas of the world were “underdeveloped” and outlined a plan for sharing knowledge and information with these identified countries in an effort to help with economic development. His speech built on a foundation of thought that more developed nations were to focus on what role they could have in influencing underdeveloped countries. Prior to his 1949 speech, discussions between the United States and Britain during World War II show that “development was an international obligation” for more developed countries. (Helleiner, 2009) The Atlantic Charter, signed in 1941 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill, stated that all countries should be “free from fear and want”. Twenty-six free governments declared that they “subscribed to a common program of purposes and principles” that eventually led to the establishment of the United Nations. (Funk & Wagnalls New World Encyclopedia, 2009) These events show the development of a broadly held universal system of ethics that has been evolving over time. While they begin to establish an understanding that countries with more wealth have a role or responsibility in the development of poorer countries, the way in which this happens is up for evaluation.
By looking at a recent social justice campaign and evaluating it according the philosophies of empiricism and rationalism, we can see a clear dispute in the philosophical approach to international justice and aid that exists. Using the events surrounding Joseph Kony and the Lord’s Resistance Army in Central Africa and the international agency Invisible Children, along with several critiques of their approach, we will clearly outline respective philosophical approaches and determine that the best approach to international development is a combination of Empiricism and Rationalism that ensures both inspired empathy, mobilization and awareness and long-term information and strategy for future development issues.
The 2012 social media phenomenon Kony 2012 brought the actions of Joseph Kony in to the mainstream. Amy C. Finnegan describes the campaign this way:
In March 2012, Invisible Children, a US-based education and advocacy organization dedicated to supporting war-affected children in central and eastern Africa, inspired millions of young Americans to “Make Kony Famous.” Using Kony 2012, a 30-minute online film, which quickly became the most viral video in history, with a viewership of more than 100 million in only one week, Invisible Children sought to raise global awareness about Joseph Kony, the leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), so as to bring him to justice at the International Criminal Court through the support of the US military. (Finnegan, 2013)
The campaign went viral, reaching more people and translated into more languages in a shorter amount of time than any video in history. The actions of Joseph Kony, from abducting children and using them as wives and soldiers, to raping women and destroying villages, became more well-known and the result was pressure on the United States government to deploy military personnel in an effort to capture Kony so that he could be held accountable for his actions and brought to trial. This campaign has been chosen for this evaluation of philosophy and international development for a number of reasons. First, there is no debate that the actions of Joseph Kony over the last 25 years are wrong. No critique of the Kony 2012 campaign states that he has a cultural right to his actions or that the West should stay out of the matter in order to not impose on a cultural tradition. Simply, the critiques are not relativist in nature. Also, there is no historical denial of the facts of the situation - that children, men and women have been abducted, killed, raped, forced to kill others, that children have been taken as wives, that limbs have been amputated and that the continuation of these actions at any level is wrong. There is plenty of proof and widespread acceptance of the facts. The dispute, than, is limited to the approach used in inspiring behavior and in the way that change is expected to occur at the international level. We will limit our discussion to the philosophy behind this dispute.
The non-profit Invisible Children approached the social justice issue of Joseph Kony and his child army from an Empiricist viewpoint. In researching the history of Invisible Children, it is clear that what they saw and experienced as young people in Uganda informed their understanding of their place in society and the role the had to play in influencing the lives of Central Africans. In 2003 the three founders, then in their late teens and early 20s, travelled to Uganda and witnessed the effect that the LRA had on the villages, and especially the children, that they visited. Their experience there drove their decisions to see Joseph Kony brought to justice and also informed their approach in their efforts to stop Kony and end the LRA. When the Kony 2012 video went viral, backlash ensued. One of the main criticisms of the video, and Invisible Children, was that the message was “oversimplified”. Invisible Children acknowledged and supported the decision to simplify the facts on their blog. In a blog post dated March 16, 2012, Azy Groth writes on behalf of Invisible Children, “Kony 2012 is undoubtedly simplified. It is, after all, a short film geared towards high school and college students. It was also designed for the Internet, where attention spans are notoriously short . . . A 29-minute Internet video will inevitably fall short of addressing . . . nuances.” It is clear, even from their own perspective, that the goal was not to relay the complex information or help others access that information immediately, it was to inspire an emotional response and the hope was that emotions would run high enough to garner action and that action would lead to influence and an immediate ending to Joseph Kony. (Groth, 2012) The immediate emotional response is also supported by the words of Invisible Children’s President Jason Russell as he said, “We decided that 2012 was the last year for Joseph Kony to continue his crimes against humanity.” (Casey, 2012) The question remains, is the strong emotional response and mobilization of students enough to change the situation? (Finnegan, 2013)
The emotional and sensory response of the Empiricist is directly challenged by the Rationalist in regards to international development and can be illustrated through the criticisms of the Kony 2012 campaign. While Rationalists would not argue against the actions of Joseph Kony as terrible and wrong, and the affects seen on various Central African villages as devastating, they would approach the proper response from the standpoint of reason, as our book states, “Rationalists do not reject the information we gain through the senses; rather, they don’t regard it as the chief source of our most important philosophical truths, and insist that such sensory information cannot justify those truths . . . our most important and eternal claims- about ourselves, about others, about God – can only be discovered and justified by reason.” (Mosser, 2010) The approach of Invisible Children has been to mobilize American young people to raise awareness, fundraise and contact elected officials to support a military response to Joseph Kony’s presence in Central Africa. These young people, the majority of whom are white, upper-class, females, are not given the tools to rationalize the best response to the situation, but are fed the empiricist approach of Invisible Children:
Invisible Children’s current emphasis on “aiding the other” in the absence of serious historical, political, and cultural contextualization of that engagement, mindful of US militarization of the African continent, blinds young Americans to thoughtful analysis of the genuine needs on the ground, the already ongoing indigenous efforts to address those needs, and the potential impact of outsiders’ efforts. (Finnegan, 2013)
Invisible Children’s approach, “Disregarded principles of neutrality and noninterference. They simplified and sensationalized” all for the effect, not the rational response or action for long-term change and against the better judgment of established humanitarians. (Perry, 2012)
While the reach, awareness, activism and inspiration of the Kony 2012 video cannot be disputed and the effect that Invisible Children has had in many high schools and colleges is to be applauded, and perhaps even studied, the stronger argument for an approach to International Development comes from the Rationalist. It is clear that development that remains focused on emotion will eventually fade away or need to be reignited over time. It is clear that development that places some people as the beneficiaries of another’s generously given time and money creates a devastating social structure, as does the unchallenged structure of development that places the giver of aid at the center of the decision making process without balanced partnership with those that would be direct recipients. Emotional responses do not create room for long-term solutions, partnerships, or time to critique the cultural influences that may be dictating solutions.
The Rationalist perspective alone, however, can hinder action as complexities emerge and understanding is not fully reached before devastation has occurred. The example here is the Hutu and Tutsi genocides in Rwanda in which so much time was taken in not interfering that millions of lives were lost. Therefore, the most directly affective and reasonable response is to combine the Empiricist and Rationalist viewpoints in order to secure a timely, well-informed and strategic plan that properly aids those in need, includes the people directly affected as the main decision makers and keeps international aid what it is meant to be – aid. Not a mission for one country to complete nearly autonomously on the soil of another country. This approach would best combine the benefits of both philosophical views and eliminate the determents of approaching international from only one side.
As we have seen, international aid and foreign policy are complex. Many things need to be taken in to consideration for long-term, positive change. While the empiricist approach includes the inspiration and mobilization of many that helps to spur action, the rationalist approach brings the needed facts and strategy for lasting change. The best approach for international aid is a combination of the two that highlights their benefits and counters their faults.
No comments:
Post a Comment