Emilia Henkel – Pike & Hurricane

The Tension of Action & Theory

Emilia Henkel — Tue, 06 Dec 2016 10:07:06 +0000

Abolitionists, in the 18th century US, proclaiming slaves as equal human beings. In 2016, a nurse distributing blankets to people freezing in a crowded gymnasium after an earthquake in Italy. Students, who set up a table in front of the Orkanen library at Malmo University, promoting animal rights.

What do those scenarios have in common? Each of them is representing a different facet of humanitarianism, a big word the meaning of which varies its tone in different languages.

The Finnish word humanismi describes benevolent acts of humans towards other humans – recognising them as individuals with needs and rights (in more radical readings there is no differences between humans and animals). The English term conjures up reforms and changing structures for the better rather than individual acts of kindness. The German word humanitarismus has rather negative connotations: a benevolence that is patronising and disempowering, serving the conscience of the benefactor more than the beneficiary and thereby glossing over and sustaining inequality.

These divergent meanings of humanitarianism are harbouring contradictions that lie at the heart of the moral dilemma that development aid is facing, even though this aspect is often overlooked.

Despite all reforms and critical rethinking of development aid, the humanitarian thought remains at the heart of development aid. The advertisements and public statements of the donor NGOs and state agencies (including the main sponsor of this issue, The Swedish Development Agency [SIDA]) are nurturing the image of benevolent, selfless help. The humanitarian tale is not only motivating individuals to donate to these institutions but also justifies everything that is done in the name of humanity. Volunteer services give young people the chance to be part of the kindness, to experience what it feels like to do good to others, which are obviously far away.

This is a problem, because the humanitarian ambition has made us blind to the inhuman, profit-oriented face of development in the past. While the actual effects of development projects are discussed very critically in academic and activist circles, the good intentions behind the idea of development are rarely questioned. Humanitarianism embodies these good intentions. Humanitarian motivations for development aid are often defended as being essentially great, but unfortunately extremely difficult to translate them into practice.

In this article I want to challenge this view and argue that the idea of humanitarianism, in all its diversity and complexity, has several inherent problems in relation to development aid that go beyond a tension between theory and praxis.

First of all, humanitarianism assumes universal values of what is good and what is desirable. Helping always implies that someone is in a negative situation and needs someone else’s assistance to change things for the better. But who defines what is bad and what needs to be changed?

That leads to the second point, where one person is the benefactor and the other is the beneficiary. That is completely fine, when the roles are situational and can be reversed. In connection with development aid however, this is hardly ever the case because of unequal global power structures.

Secondly, the humanitarian narrative in development aid has contributed to stereotypes which portray Western, white people as striving forward, knowledgeable and powerful and therefore in a position to grand help to others. People from the Global South and especially people of colour have in contrast been represented as poor, hungry, timeless and essentially unable to help themselves. Especially the advertisements that are supposed to attract donations in the Global North have been criticised by organisations of people of colour in this regard. While the humanitarian narrative is pleasant for donors, it continues to disempower the beneficiaries.

Thirdly, the humanitarian thought has a dreadful colonial legacy. Immanuel Wallerstein, in his book on European Universalism explains very well the connections between humanitarian agendas of early Spanish colonists and Western humanitarian aid workers today. The Spaniards understood their colonial encounter with the native Americans, which resulted in – as benevolent acts of kindness – Christianising and thereby humanising the poor wild Indians. A few hundred years later, English and French imperialists saw it as “The White Man’s Burden” to give the great gift of civilisation to the barbarian inhabitants of Africa and Asia. And what about today? The new gifts that westerners bring are named democracy and human rights, but are they any different? What is behind the good humanitarian ideals and who is profiting and losing due to development aid? Despite these inherent problems, I believe that humanitarianism can be transformed into a powerful motivator when applied with care and concern for unequal power structures.

It is essential to move on from one sided help towards an equal cooperation between people. On the level of development, this simple vision is however difficult to realise,because development cooperation takes place in larger unequal structures. Asymmetrical North-South power relations are affecting decision-making processes and funding structures. As a first step, it would be necessary to acknowledge this unbalance, drop the euphemistic discourse of benevolent help and open the eyes to negative effects on beneficiaries. As a next step, perspectives from the Global South should be incorporated and valued when defining what the problem is that requires help, what this help should look like and where it should come from.

It is much easier to move to a less patronising humanitarianism on a micro-level. A good example from the context of Malmö is the people’s kitchen in Kontrapunkt. This project does not follow the usual model of a group of well-situated people cooking for the poor and homeless, which is a prime example for old-school humanitarianism. Instead, everyone is invited to join the cooking team and everyone is invited to eat and share the food afterwards. The people’s kitchen recognises every human equally as an individual with the capacity to contribute as well as needs, that can be cared for by the community. That is a humanitarianism to strive for.

Emilia Henkel

The post The Tension of Action & Theory appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Brexit from a New Perspective: British-Bangladeshi Reactions to the Discussion of Immigration

Emilia Henkel — Mon, 03 Oct 2016 13:06:46 +0000

Complex questions and important decisions

On the 23rd of June, the British people voted on a very important decision, a decision that would determine the country’s future: Leave or Remain in the European Union. Even though this is an incredibly complex question, touching on all parts of social life and organisation, the Vote Leave campaign managed to steer the discussions to one single omnipotent problem: immigration. It seemed to be addressing a need to talk in the British society. In the past decades Britain has taken a multicultural approach in its policies dealing with immigration. However in the mid-2000s the discourse about culture, cultural differences and the cultural heritage of immigrants changed, with Gordon Brown opening up a discussion on Britishness.

Journey to England

Questions of national belonging and identity continuously resurfaced during my journey through England in June 2016. I was meeting with British-Bangladeshis to talk about their relation to their country of origin in the context of their life in England. The month of June was, from a wider political point of view, a very interesting time to travel, since issues of immigration and assimilation discussed by people in the streets, in pubs and at academic lectures related to the topic of my journey. While I was in England, I interviewed British-Bangladeshis in Manchester and London about their perception of and relation to Bangladesh transforming over the years in the diaspora. My interviewees were very different in terms of their age, gender, profession and their relationship with England. Inevitably, we came to talk about Brexit and the related discussion about immigration, even though I didn’t ask any structured questions about it during our interviews. In this article, I want to share the opinions of people I met during my journey and add to this edition new perspectives, that rarely make their way into the mainstream media.

Access to the discourse

Many of the people I interviewed were immigrants to Britain and therefore explicitly concerned with the impact that changes to immigration would have in case of a secession from the EU. The Annana Community Centre in Manchester, which is run by British-Bangladeshi women, provides advice for navigating the British system and everyday many newly arrived migrants from Italy, Spain and France meet there. Interestingly, many of them are unaware of the political changes ahead even though they have plans to invite more relatives to Britain.

Dipu

A striking example is the following scene I experienced in the Annana Office: Dipu, an Italian-Bangladeshi volunteer, who has settled in England three years ago, asked her British born colleague Hasina about the meaning of some flyers she received in her mail. Hasina quickly explained to her why the hateful information sheets of the “Out” campaign were very bad and advised her to throw them away as quickly as possible. While Dipu is going to be directly affected by changes in immigration laws for European citizens, her knowledge of English is limited and therefore she is excluded from the discussions on immigration to England, which concern her very much. While she is the central object of the discourse, her possibilities to take part in it and influence her own future are limited.

Sujit and Shumon

Sujit and Sumon on the election day.

A very different example is provided by the British-Bangladeshi brothers Sujit and Sumon. Sujit came to London 11 years ago with a student visa, succeeded in his professional career and recently acquired permanent residency in Great Britain. His brother Sumon´s student permit has expired after seven years in Britain and without a new visa he faces expulsion from the country, where he built himself a life in the last seven years. The British immigration law has toughened over the last years and Sumon was refused a new visa several times. Sujit started looking for alternative paths and found a loophole in the confusing interrelations of EU law. He made plans to move to Ireland to apply more successfully for a visa for his brother. On the night of the 23rd June, the brothers followed the results of the referendum with great tension. When it became clear that Britain voted to leave the EU around 5 in the morning, it meant for Sujit and Sumon that their space to act was shrinking and they would have to be quick to realize the plans. Sumon and Sujit had access to the discourse and cast their vote, however their perspectives are rarely discussed in the public discourse.

Diverging opinions

Jesmin

Jesmin sitting for a conversation.

My British-Bangladeshi interviewees, among them many who already acquired British citizenship or were born in the country held all kinds of attitudes towards the referendum. Jesmin, a Mancunian cultural activist and translator in her forties, who has lived and raised her kids in England for 20 years, expressed her great distress about the vote to leave the EU on Facebook in the following comments, posted within the hours of tension when the results of the referendum were published: “In in in in!”, “If leave wins, it would be down to the inaction and complacence of the remain supporters. Going to bed with an uneasy feeling; I don’t like breakups, especially ones that we’re not so sure about.” “Only 4% majority shouldn’t be enough to leave the EU. Feeling apprehensive about the future.”

Dr. Renu

Dr. Renu, who spend her whole adult life in England and currently works for the local authority in London, expressed similar distress about the decision to leave the EU: “I feel so sad, depressed and shocked because of Brexit. The Bengali people in London faced a lot racism in the 70´s and 80´s and I thought those days are over. This intolerance is terrible”. At the same time she expressed critical views of immigration, paraphrasing slogans of the Vote Leave campaign about eastern European immigrants “ They never stand in the queue and are very uncultured. It is probably because of they are used to communism. They cannot deal with their freedom here. They are also very racist. They don´t like other skin colours. They bring a lot of children from Romania because they are earning more on child benefit than they could otherwise. One woman told me in a whispering voice that she is from Romania, she didn’t want anyone to know.”. A very interesting discrepancy in her discourse emerges, as she negotiates her ideas of tolerance with images of the other prevalent in the British media at the time.

Faisal

Her distress about European immigration was shared by Faisal, a 29 year old London born British Bangladeshi, who is an activist for Palestinian rights and sympathises with left and anarchist politics. To explain his stance against European immigration he told the following story: When he was a teenage boy, he used to earn pocket money by delivering papers. A few months ago, he contacted his old employer again in order to ask for a job for his younger cousin but all the papers were delivered by an adult Polish man now. Faisal was unhappy with this development which he found contributing to problems of young people with migrant backgrounds in London. For him immigration from Europe presented competition for limited access to jobs, education, public spaces and other opportunities, which should be open first and foremost to local youth. It is interesting how he negotiates personal experiences of racial discrimination and migration in his family with the right wing anti-immigration arguments he supports in the Brexit discussions. Faisal argues for example that EU law favours European immigrants over those from Britain´s former colonies and consequently is euro-centric and neo-colonial. When I met Faisal, a fervent supporter of “Out” before the 23rd of June, again some days later, he deeply regretted his own and his country’s vote, abashed by the racist violence springing up all over England.

A Majority for Remain

Next to the people presented above, who were following the political development with great interest, some interviewees were more on the surface or not so much concerned with the referendum. However, they also shared the opinion of the majority that the Vote to Leave would negatively affect Britain and especially immigrants and people with non-English heritage. They feared increasing racism and discrimination in public spaces and the job market.

Conclusion

All in all, the diverse approaches of my interviewees towards the questions on immigration raised by the Brexit campaign reflect their very different social attributes. Next to personal political opinion and the environment, age, gender, profession, length of stay in England and level of English determined their access to the discourse as well as their opinion. There was no general consensus but rather multiple, even opposing opinions shaped by own lived experiences as well as “greater narratives” promoted by politicians and media.

Emilia Henkel

Image 1: Jeremy Weate Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic

The post Brexit from a New Perspective: British-Bangladeshi Reactions to the Discussion of Immigration appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

The Same, but Different

Emilia Henkel — Fri, 03 Jun 2016 13:03:19 +0000

When I was small, my mum and dad read books to me about families with two dads or with one mum who were just as normal as ours. I was taught to accept everyone equally, no matter what their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation is. My time in Bangladesh showed me, how far I still am from this ideal. I came there for one year to work as a volunteer for an NGO in the North-Western part of the country. My self-perception of being open and tolerant got shaken right from the start.

I arrived in Bangladesh’s capital Dhaka, a bustling 20 Million city. I was overwhelmed, never having been in a comparable metropole before. We volunteers were taken to explore the city, the ancient monuments, the shopping streets and parks. We walked around the Dhanmondi Lake, on lovely paths made for the recreation of the urban middle class. I noticed a lot of new, different things about the people around me, but what bothered me most were the male couples. They were walking by with fingers intertwined, teasing and leaning on to each other. I could not help watching them with irritation and confused giggles. I never saw men being so tender with each other in public and I immediately assumed that they were homosexual. Why would men hold hands otherwise?

In my rural district of Germany, this behaviour was considered appropriate for heterosexual couples and for girls. Gay was a common insult and the boys would only act affectionate to joke around. The serious greetings were fist bumps and body checks. Hugging, cuddling and going hand in hand was girly. The gender roles defining how boys and girls ought to behave were very rigid in my head and the physical display of male affection in Bangladesh shocked me.

For the first time, I became painfully aware of my own homophobia hidden under all the liberal support for the rights of sexual minorities. It was necessary for me to leave my own culture, to realise that these roles were not natural, biologically determined behaviour but constructed and taught by society. Bangladesh, just like Germany, has rigidly defined gender roles, but along different lines. Since I am unfamiliar with the Bangladeshi constructions, they enabled me to question the German gender roles that I always took for granted. Over time, I got used to cuddling men and stopped turning my head after them. Beside me, nobody interpreted their behaviour as sexual or strange.

Hijras, who got accepted as Third gender by the Bangladeshi government in 2013, were the people who made me question my ideas about gender. The sexual minority identifies as intersexual and they face a lot of discrimination and constraints in their daily lives in Bangladesh. Their existence does not uproot the Bangladeshi gender roles. Rather, the Third gender has had a limited place and assigned tasks in South Asian society since 300 A.D. Compared to sexual minorities in Germany, the 10,000 Hijras of Bangladesh are very visible in public, mostly by chatting up people for money. The common explanation from my colleagues and friends was that Hijras were obviously unfit for work and therefore needed to be supported by the society. In my German society the Third gender is not established and assigned a clear role. Because I was not accustomed to the gender role they fulfilled, I could not predict the Hijras’ actions and they made me feel insecure. I really wished I could have taken them like my Bangladeshi friends who were familiar and at ease with their behaviour. Instead of being scared, they were joking around with the Hijras. Once more, I had to adjust my previous idea about two clearly defined sexes

But of course, the Bangladeshi society is not perfect when it comes to rights of sexual minorities. In fact, it is terrible. Gender Roles might be different from Germany, but they exist and limit people nevertheless. Hijras got accepted as a Third gender, but they are still forbidden to have relationships with each other. The section 377, introduced by the British colonial rulers in 1860, punishes all “unnatural” sexual behaviour with up to ten years in prison. Several attempts to get rid of the section 377 by activist groups were fruitless. The government does not want to grant sexual minorities their human right because that would be in conflict with the values of the majority population. Homosexuality remains a taboo in society. In spite of the government’s and the society’s repressions, mostly gay men have been able to form a community with help of the internet. “Boys of Bangladesh” is the most famous site, organising trainings and secret meetings. The Hijras as well have organisations demanding for the Third gender to be accepted as equal citizens with equal access to the labour market and health care.

The discrimination against the few Bangladeshis who openly live and defend their sexuality against the norm, has peaked in the murder of two activists for gay rights. On the 25 April 2016, five men stormed into the apartment of Xulhas Mannan in Dhaka. He was the editor of Bangladesh’s first LGBT magazine “Roopbaan”. They stabbed him and his friend Mahbub Rabbi Tonoy to death and managed to escape. Responsibility for the attacks was later claimed by Ansar-al-Islam, a group associated with Al- Qaida. Mannan had received death threats for wanting to organise a LGBT rally at the big festivities of the Bangla New Year earlier in April. The rally was suspended for security reasons and the Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina criticised Mannan for adultery in his writings.

The LGBTI community agrees that the attack on Mannan cannot be blamed only on the extremism of Ansar-al-Islam. The murder took place in an environment of dominant ideas about gender and sex that are harming sexual minorities. It hurts me to hear about this terrible crime being committed in Bangladesh. But now it is important for me to stay away from old, Eurocentric stereotypes about the Global South that does not get human rights, asking: “In what kind of backward country is this possible?” I have to remember, that Bangladesh is also the country which opened my mind to new approaches to gender roles. The murder of Mannan and Tonoy should remind everyone of us to learn from each other and work together for a pluralist world, where different ideas on sex and gender can exist next to each other. To reach this aim Germany has just as much to learn from Bangladesh as the other way around.

By Emilia Henkel

Image credit:

Picture 1: Adam Jones, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

Picture 2: R Barraez D´Lucca, licensed under CC BY 2.0

The post The Same, but Different appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.