Reimagining Volunteering needs a decolonisation lens – what we should be cautious of

 Few will disagree that the concept of ‘volunteering’, doing something of service for

someone else, is part of the DNA and fabric of local communities, highlighting the best that

can be achieved when people come together to serve. Over the existence of human society,

we have seen the tremendous good that has come about when people of their own volition

have come together, often at times of tragedy but also other times, to serve those in need,

family and friends. Within every local faith and cultural tradition there is something that

describes this action and concept that is a reminder of that human fraternity. Volunteering

is very much active and present on a global, regional, national and local level.

Whilst there is much to celebrate in how volunteering is still an integral part of

communities, we still need to interrogate how volunteering is represented and discussed

and whether current discussions really consider, local realities, agency, ownership and

integration.

Volunteering as a concept, argument, terminology and process, in how it is understood and

discussed currently is a hangover of colonialism, shaped exclusively by Western / Christian

values, visible in power relationships, of the ‘missionaries’, often coming from privileged

places in their societies in the Global North, seeking to change the social, political and

economic structures of countries in the Global South with little input from affected

communities, the original ‘White Saviour’ moment. Initially, as the history of many social

movements show, volunteers were female, using their ‘free’ time as housewives to keep

themselves busy. Thus, many of the volunteering organisations and movements were led

by privileged women of society and volunteering remains disproportionately female.

Whilst other grandchildren of the colonisation, the development, and humanitarian sectors,

have started having conversations around decolonisation, the volunteering sector still

seems to be far removed from these conversations. This is a missed opportunity because

volunteering lies at the heart of community cohesion and engagement, either fed through

faith traditions or cultural values.

Yet in having a decolonised discussion on volunteering, we need to be prepared for some

hard truths.

Decolonising the volunteering narrative, must be bold to include a discussion around

disrupting the system or getting rid of the system altogther. A decolonisation discussion on

volunteering must consider that those from former colonised states, might want

decolonisation to deal with their own lived experience of oppression, injustice and

corruption brought about by their own current political and feudal elite let along dealing

with the colonial legacy. Decolonised discussions on volunteering need to crucially address

power imbalances today, inequity and inequality whilst discussing dignity, agency and

power. If we are discussing decolonisation of volunteering in the 21st century, we have to

address why it is still volunteers (largely white) coming out to countries with brown and

black subjects and ‘doing good’ and helping them, yet, very rarely is this reversed. Very

rarely is it acknowledged that people who volunteer are those who can afford to and that

the vast majority of people in the world, whilst having an intention to do something for free,

are unable to because their reality is that they need to put food on the table. Very rarely do

we in the volunteering sector discuss the real issues of the role of ‘volunteers’ from the

West / Global North, in geopolitics, military warfare, oil, illegal occupation, genocide, etc.

So a decolonisation discussion on volunteering whilst being cognisant of the past can not

simply ignore the current colonial or injustices that are taking place in the world today

Decolonisation of volunteering is about looking at the change in the whole system in place

that the sector subscribes to, describes, lives in and works with, which  are oppressive to

people who are Black, Indigenous or a Person of Colour (BIPOC) and from what is called the

Global South, itself a disputed term. We need to have openand honest conversations with

a diverse range of actors, democratising the space for people to share ideas. We need to be

prepared to have our ideas, definitions, business models challenged, critiqued and even

changed. A discussion on the decolonisation of volunteering means that we need to provide

a seat at the table for everyone to be able to share their ideas, to understand how different

people from different parts of the world approach the conversation of volunteering,

decolonization which can be difficult for many in terms of language and understanding

We must also understand that Colonialism is a fact. We can’t repair the past nor allow it to

become a ball and chain for the future, and so we need to look at the inherent

contradictions and complexities of the volunteering project to see our own humility and

shine a lens on our own project. In the last three years, when the world was shut down, and

the lockdowns and restrictions of movement exposed the fallacies of the current system

and the unsustainability of the current volunteering, we were provided a blueprint for true

local, decolonised volunteer action where locals had agency and power to act according to

their local challenges.

Decolonising volunteering needs to think about an equity-based understanding of

volunteering action which means understanding that manifestations of oppression are

rooted in power hierarchies that often do not operate alone. They intersect with gender,

religion, socio-economic status, geography, sexual orientation, and numerous other social

markers, creating layers of oppression that are inextricably intertwined. Thus, addressing

one facet of inequity is not enough. Effective volunteering action requires a local

understanding and approach which is intersectional and operationally rooted, that provides

agency, enables representation and address power dynamics.

The concept of volunteering has evolved and changed happening in difficult conditions that

are difficult to measure; that are as informal as they are formal, thereby making it difficult

to integrate and as spontaneous as they are organized, making ownership difficult to

attribute. We need to recognise these are all vital components of a wide spectrum of

volunteering that has to be decolonised, redefined reimagined and rethought for the 21 st

century.

We need to do better; we need to be better, not because it is the good thing to do, but the

right thing to do.

This orignally appeared here

From “diversity” to “justice”: understanding faith approaches to decolonisation

 My official journey with JLI started in early 2015, enroute to the World Humanitarian Summit of 2016. The Summit highlighted the need for exploring localisation and, in another way, the role of faith organisations. The latter is something of extreme importance to me, having had the discomfort of being firmly told on more than one occasion, “We don’t do faith!”. The way in which JLI provided a dedicated space for exploring the role of faith organisations in humanitarian work was of particular interest. It was filling a gap and creating a space for building understandings.

I come to the JLI from a number of perspectives. I’d had practical experience of working with a faith based organisation in the field, and being denied a seat at the table because of my colour and the faith-based organisation that I represented.  I was soon led to believe that the humanitarian and development industry would prefer to disregard faith and faith engagement.  However for me, to disregard faith is to disregard the lived experience of millions of people worldwide –  this strikes at the heart of the decolonial debate, of a denial of agency, representation, thinking and ultimately power. We need to have faith at the table. 

 To disregard faith is to disregard the lived experience of millions of people worldwide

JLI’s Fair & Equitable Approach is an intriguing prospect for conversations to start.  It is a refreshing way to approach a process that has increasingly frustrated me. Now that suddenly it has become trendy to talk about “decolonisation”, we have seen the decolonisation discourse and narrative co-opted to instead focus on diversity and inclusion – as opposed to looking at the deeper, systemic problem of asymmetric power that comes from a pedagogy that brown and black subjects are not ready to take control of their destinies.

We need to understand the narratives of decolonisation, colonialism, and localisation and their intersection with diversity, equality and inclusion. They are not the same! Decolonisation is about looking at change in all systems which are oppressive to people who are Black, Indigenous or a Person of Colour (BIPOC), and from what is called the Global South (itself a disputed term).  However the current conversations seem limited to tinkering with, and not replacing, existing problematic systems – failing to acknowledge that the global aid industry is the grandchild of colonial missionaries and a result of colonial hangover.

The Fair & Equitable Dialogues, a series of webinars launched in December 2021, allowed us to have open and honest conversations, led by local actors, about what localisation and decolonisation meant for local faith actors working in the humanitarian space. From the word go, we consciously sought to democratise the space for people to share ideas,  and tried to correct power imbalances in terms of who was given the platform to speak, how discussions were structured, and what questions were being asked. Recognising that the space and the format itself needed to be decolonised and rethought was as much part of the thinking and process as who said what. 

What transpired from these dialogues was a consensus that confronting asymmetries of power, whilst uncomfortable, was needed, and required understanding from all sides. Understanding how people approached definitions of words was particularly important, as terminologies had different meanings for different people, and language gaps and cultural divides complicated matters. Terms like “decolonisation” can be difficult for many, due to how  different cultures approach this topic from a contextual understanding. But the dialogues provided a space where we could understand how different people approached conversations about decolonisation. 

There was also a realisation that we needed to create more of these spaces, especially supporting the agency of those faith actors who do not usually get a seat at the table to share their ideas.  Inevitably, what came up during the dialogues was still a sense of reluctance from international secular agencies to engage wholeheartedly with faith actors, especially those at the local level. There is much more work needed to overcome stereotypes of local faith actors and also vice versa.

He reminded me of the importance of having humility during this process of wanting to listen and learn.

Colonialism is a fact.

We can’t repair the past, but we can look at the inherent contradictions and complexities of the humanitarian project, adopting a sense of humility that calls on us to listen and learn.  This is where there are learning opportunities provided by the COVID-19 pandemic, where lockdowns and travel restrictions exposed the fallacies of the current system and the unsustainability of the aid relationship. It provided a blueprint for true local, decolonised action, where locals have agency and power to act according to their local challenges.  Recently I was  challenged by a Buddhist monk in Sri Lanka to explain in simple terms about what I meant in a language that he understood. He made me realise the importance of using clear, everyday language when engaging with local faith communities, instead of the inaccessible jargon favoured by our sector. He reminded me of the importance of having humility during this process of wanting to listen and learn.

In providing that blueprint, a space can be provided for an equity-based understanding of humanitarian action which advocates for ‘adapting humanitarian work to each individual’s needs and background [to ensure] those affected are being treated equitably’. This means understanding that manifestations of oppression, such as racism, are rooted in power hierarchies that often do not operate alone. They intersect with gender, religion, socio-economic status, geography, sexual orientation, and numerous other social markers, creating layers of oppression that are inextricably intertwined. Thus, addressing one facet of inequity is not enough. Effective action requires an intersectional, operationally-rooted approach to humanitarian action. 

This is ultimately at the heart of a decolonised approach to disrupting the system of humanitarian and development aid. We need to do better; we need to be better, not because it is the good thing to do, but the right thing to do, to treat people with dignity, respect and humanity.  This is our moral responsibility.

this orginally appeared here

Decolonising the international development sector requires a disruption (part 2): Engaging with faith actors to transform colonial power structures

This blog post is the fourth one in a series that captures some of the learning that took place during the roundtables that we organised at the Annual Conference of the Development Studies Association in the summer of 2021 and 2022. The roundtables brought together researchers, practitioners and theologians from Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East and North America who work at the intersection of decolonisation, development and faith. Our work also builds on the Fair and Equitable Initiative of the Joint Learning Initiative on Faith and Local Communities.

 The colonial, Western and Christian legacy of the global aid industry

Given how secular the humanitarian and development sector presents itself these days, It is easy to forget that the global aid industry can be considered a result of the hangover of colonialism, shaped by Western and Christian values. Decolonisation did not start in 2020 following the murder of George Floyd but when people in the Global South, often led by faith leaders and institutions, began organising to counter the ideologies and practices of their colonial oppressors who sought to enforce power and to seize land. This colonial legacy lives on in the systems and structures that the ‘civilising missions’ of development and humanitarian agencies from the colonial powers still perpetuate. Many contemporary policies and actions instituted in and by humanitarian and development organisations re-enforce these colonial power dynamics, where people and institutions from the Global North systematically oppress and exercise domination over those from the Global South. These legacies influence humanitarian assistance and development activities in ways that make affected people feel that the services provided for them are not programmed for them, nor taking account of their input or designed according to their needs. It is these legacies that influence how affected people are treated and described, essentialising their dependency and lack of agency, where they are depicted as ‘vulnerable’, ‘powerless’, ‘helpless’, ‘disempowered’, or as ‘victims’.

Decolonisation debates in the development sector need to engage with religion

While religion, has played a role in establishing and maintaining or fighting against  colonial structures, the contemporary aid industry has not only tended to ignore this legacy, but it has also often overlooked the importance of religion for the majority of the world’s poor today. In a twist of irony, the assumption that secularisation will accompany development and modernisation has itself become an element of colonisation ignoring the lived experience of people in the Global South. This strikes at the heart of the decolonial debate, as it is a denial of agency, of representation and, ultimately, of power. Religion matters for people! Therefore, enforcing the post-enlightenment proposition that religion belongs in the private sphere, while all public matters ought to be treated as purely secular, does not make sense given the reality of millions of lived experiences. There is, thus, a need to disrupt and reframe the decolonisation narrative to include and engage with the influence of religious systems and structures on people’s social, political and economic lives, as well as the contribution of faith actors of different types, which provide support to individuals and communities facing poverty, inequality and injustice.

The significance, and limitations, of faith-based development actors

Faith actors in general, and faith-based organisations in particular, are often seen to have advantages over secular organisations. This includes an ability to leverage wide-reaching networks to raise funds, and to mobilise volunteers. Many faith-based groups operate with a spirit of selflessness, zeal and passion, encouraging a ‘volunteerism’ that gives them credibility and the capacity to demonstrate, through practice, the very ideas of self-help and self-reliance. Also, long standing connections with communities, bolstered via a shared faith identity, can earn them a position of trust to ensure important social benefits such as the uptake of vaccines during the COVID pandemic. In their connection to local communities, faith actors are also ideally placed to understand and address the local injustices that the poor experience. In addition, since many faith actors also have international links, especially when they are organised as formal faith-based organisations or networks, they can act as an effective bridge between communities on the ground and international actors. Despite these attributes and advantages in some settings, faith is not a panacea for addressing poverty, inequality, and justice. International faith-based organisations which are not rooted in a given community can sometimes be justly accused of parachuting in, at times literally, and leaving no sustainable footprint. In that regard, they do not act in significantly different ways to their secular international counterparts. Moreover, within faith communities (whether they are numerous and powerful, a minority struggling for a voice or an influential cadre), there is often as strong a history of internecine strife and struggle as there is of cooperation and collaboration.

Engaging with faith communities to transform Eurocentric power structures

It is against a framework of potential disagreement and division, as much as cooperation and collaboration, that a process of engagement must occur with faith-based organisations and other faith actors, breaking away from perpetuating a Eurocentric knowledge system that marginalises the significance of religion. This is an essential part of dismantling the ways that we, as international development and humanitarian actors, construct the communities we work in as “other”, i.e. places overseas with problems and needs, rather than places where solutions are generated and capabilities are in place. Most importantly, it involves transforming power structures so that those holding a seat of power start to look more like the communities where the work is taking place. This includes faith-based organisations which sometimes replicate the global secular system rather than challenge it.

Disrupting the existing system, developing a new paradigm

A genuine disruption of the system needs to entail the development of a new paradigm that critically interrogates the localisation agenda, identifies where it currently replicates colonial structures, and instead works with local voices, cultures and traditions to strengthen and make space for their agency. Decolonial development thinkers and doers need to facilitate a pedagogy of liberation and freedom that works in partnership with the affected community. It is about taking the risk and having the right actors at the table, to hear their voices, including faith actors and people of no faith. This is where the thinking on decolonisation within the humanitarian and development sector has to start and be explored in ways that are intersectional, intergenerational and operationally rooted. This means understanding that manifestations of oppression, such as racism, are rooted in power hierarchies that often do not operate alone. They intersect with gender, religion, age, socio-economic status, geography, sexual orientation, and numerous other social markers, creating layers of oppression that are inextricably intertwined. Thus, addressing one facet of inequity is never enough, and ignoring or overly focusing on any of them, as many in the humanitarian and development sector have done with religion for many years, is wrong and counterproductive.

this originally appeared here