by Cecelia Lynch
What are good ways to assist people in need, no matter where they are from? What needs are imagined or exaggerated when those who want to give have very different life experiences than those they want to help? How do Christian, Muslim, secular, traditionalist, and other types of ethical frameworks guide us in working through these questions?
The case of Tom’s shoes is instructive in this regard. I’ve never yet been able to buy a pair for myself, even though they look very comfortable and conducive to travel. This is not because I disagree with giving a pair of shoes to a needy child (according to the buy-a-pair, give-a-pair model of the company). But the photos of Tom’s (white) founder, in the midst of children of color – in Sub-Saharan Africa, Haiti, etc. – always make me uncomfortable. Everyone in the photos has (Tom’s) shoes, and everyone is happy, and he is clearly the giver, and they are clearly the cheerful recipients. This is what is problematic. It is not simply that every African market seems to have a plethora of inexpensive shoes, flip-flops, etc. (I wrote this from northern Cameroon and can attest to their presence there), but it is also the case that many kids in the U.S. don’t have warm shoes for the winter, or proper shoes for sports. What we don’t need is Tom’s founder in the midst of smiling kids in Compton or Long Beach (the latter is where I live; both cities are frequently classed as “underprivileged” areas in the Southern California matrix). What we do need, perhaps, is the kind of Christianity (or other religious or non-sectarian ethics) that refuses to idealize the white benefactor, that acknowledges the partial nature of the gift, that acknowledges the broader and deeper structural issues that keep some kids in poverty – in Africa, Haiti and the U.S. – while others enjoy abundant opportunities.
Many have written about the white savior complex, and some have criticized Tom’s. Such would-be saviors are not always bad, and they are not always white, either. But they also don’t necessarily save people, even when they would like to believe they do. There are serious problems involved in trying to market goodness – with all of the attendant imagery regarding the beneficence of those who give and the neediness of those who receive. Given that Tom’s founder explicitly refers to his Christian motivations, it is worth asking what kind of Christian, as well as Islamic and other religious ethics, can provide compelling theologies of aid-in-equality rather than reinforcing paternalistic representations of aid as noblesse-oblige.
Many Christian and other religious organizations seem to be questioning less and less the paternalism of the aid industry, instead going along with it in their own promotional materials; in other words, “giving in” to the neoliberal Christianity critiqued in Lucia Hulsether’s article (see also Lynch 2011 and 2013). We have moved from an era of “aid pornography” to an era of “aid enjoyment” – we can look good and feel good while giving, and we give up nothing in return.
The CIHA Blog is looking for examples of those who resist these trends. We are also looking for compelling theologies of equality and critique, ones that do not shy away from analyzing the deeper economic and political issues and relationships involved in aid in the “postcolony” (Mbembe 2001).
Cecelia Lynch is a professor of political science and director of Institute for International, Global and Regional Studies at the University of California, Irvine. She is also co-editor of the CIHA Blog.
The use of the term “theologies of aid-in-equality” is an interesting one. It definitely makes me think about the role of religion in aid. That being said, it also makes me question to what extent this term references discourse and action that would address some of the structural issues you reference in your article. Can “aid” be used to address structural problems?
I think if my work as an organizer and one of the most important lessons I learned is the difference between volunteering to help and working to empower. Most volunteer organizations do it because it makes them feel good that they “save” youth. But they never focus on building systems in communities that will outlast their specific individual involvement (usually tutoring). What about the next kid who faces the same conditions? Is he/she not worth “saving”. What if part of toms model was for the communities that get the free shoes are the ones who produce them and are paid living wages? One must strive to help in a manner that empowers communities to be successful without you once you leave. That has always been my fundamental organizing principle.
First the image of a white Jesus or Caucasian Jusus just never existed in history. There is no historical evidence of a white Jesus. Jesus was black from Africa. See St. Matthew cp.1.1-17. Second the image of a white Jesus Christ with a lamb on his shoulder-Jesus the Redeemer of the World was used by Britain for 250 years in the brutal and heinous transatlantic slave trade in African bodies without an apology and reparations for crimes against humanity and historical injustices. Be careful how you use the name Jesus which is a very common name in Mexico and Spain. Most nefarious evils committed by the Churches in the horrendous transatlantic slave trade was committed in the name of Jesus Christ. It is morally right to critique the people who enslaved Africans for 250 years. For more information read Western European and British Barbarity, Savagery and Brutality in the Transatlantic Chattel Slave Trade: Homologated By the Churches and Intellectuals in the 17th-19th century. A Critical Study by DR. Robinson A. Milwood. Pub. by Xlibris.
I understand that founder of Toms shoes should not be making a public display of himself with a big look at me smile with a bunch of poor kids; however the fact that you dont buy Toms shoes because the founder is white and is apparently giving off this white savior complex is very disturbing. It seems you are just upset that another White male is in a position of power. Given that the founder was African American I guarantee that you would be okay with it the pictures. If people want the problems with race to disappear then stop making it an issue.
The reference to christianity calls to mind the image of redemption. Christ is the ultimate Redeemer because he gave his life to rescue christians from their sins. This redemption does come at a price: Christians must repay the spiritual debt they contracted. Aid, or even sacrifice, comes at a price. What is the price being paid by these “poor” kids who are put on display in the marketing of shoes? French thinkers Jacques Derrida teaches us that there’s nothing as pure gift. A gift can only be a gift if it disrupt and interrupt the cycle of economic exchange. Doing-good-capitalism, as is the claim made by Toms shoes, is far from a gift because it is simply another marketing scheme. Humanitarian aid is a manifestation of genuine human solidarity. It should not be debased into commercial transactions with dubious outcomes, at best. I suspect these kids have more urgent needs than a pair of expensive shoes marketed in the United States. I suspect also that people buy these shoes may think themselves as helping the so-called Third World. They have the right to think so, but they also have the moral duty to challenge structural inequality that increase poverty at home and abroad.
thanks in advance to reply