{"id":2675,"date":"2024-11-25T23:11:23","date_gmt":"2024-11-25T23:11:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.manchester.ac.uk\/anthropology-of-aid\/?page_id=2675"},"modified":"2024-11-25T23:11:43","modified_gmt":"2024-11-25T23:11:43","slug":"2024-5-the-complexities-of-being-an-aid-worker","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/sites.manchester.ac.uk\/anthropology-of-aid\/the-issues\/professions-of-doing-good\/2024-5-the-complexities-of-being-an-aid-worker\/","title":{"rendered":"(2024-5) The Complexities of Being an Aid Worker"},"content":{"rendered":"

[et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ fullwidth=”off” specialty=”on” next_background_color=”#000000″ _builder_version=”3.17.6″][et_pb_column type=”2_3″ specialty_columns=”2″][et_pb_row_inner locked=”off”][et_pb_column_inner type=”4_4″ saved_specialty_column_type=”2_3″][et_pb_post_title _builder_version=”3.0.106″ title=”on” meta=”on” author=”on” date=”on” categories=”on” comments=”on” featured_image=”on” featured_placement=”above” text_color=”dark” text_background=”off” locked=”on” parent_locked=”off” \/][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.17.6″ background_layout=”light” parent_locked=”off”]<\/p>\n

Written by Barbara Gurgel, Alisa Hogg, Caitlin McHugh, Garance Mollo, Isabella Smith, Holly Winters<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

An anthropological perspective can offer an in-depth and nuanced evaluation of aid workers and\u00a0the roles that they perform. Over the last few months, we have studied different anthropological ideas and theories surrounding \u2018professions of doing good\u2019 and explored what it means to actually \u2018do good\u2019. Through this work, we have grown to understand and inquire about the complexities of being an aid worker, the outstanding motivations to do this work and the unintended impacts it can have on an organisation’s employees. Our game seeks to immerse players in the internal conflicts that arise between adhering to their assigned profile’s expectations and staying true to their personal values as they explore the complexities and ethical dilemmas faced by aid workers.<\/p>\n

The aim of our game is for players to experience what it\u2019s like to be an aid worker. The game is made up of a square board with an incomplete jenga tower in the middle. In 10 minutes you (the player) will have to get as many pieces of jenga with your colour on the tower as you can and not make it fall. At the start of the game, you will be given a \u2018profile card\u2019, which will define what type of humanitarian organisation you belong to: neutral, religious, for profit, or political. Your profile card will have a colour, which will define the colour of your jenga pieces. Your profile should influence the decisions you make in the game. During the game you will be led to have internal conflicts between what your profile is supposed to do and your own values\u2026 that\u2019s the key message of the game. If you land on a question mark, you will have to answer it as your profile. All responses will have consequences making you win or lose jenga pieces. Some squares in the game will just make you lose or win pieces of jenga depending on humanitarian events. This shows the complexities and the ever-changing environment of being an aid worker.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

In our board game, players are placed in situations that mirror the complex ethical dilemmas and decision-making processes faced by humanitarian aid workers, since being an aid worker is a deeply situated position, influenced by both the broader humanitarian environment and the specific values of the organisation they work for. We draw on anthropological theories such as Moral Labour (Fechter, 2016) and Governmentality (Foucault, 2010), which highlight the ethical dilemmas aid workers face as they navigate tensions between organisational constraints and personal moral beliefs. On the one hand, navigating ethical dilemmas in aid work can be understood through Michel Foucault\u2019s concept of governmentality, particularly the \u201cconduct of conduct\u201d (2010, p. 17), where power operates not through direct control but by shaping norms, structures, and expectations that subtly guide individual behaviour. For example, India\u2019s Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) program, particularly its Anganwadi initiative, demonstrates this form of governance. Focused on the health and nutrition of women and children, the program uses the family as a site for moral and social governance, encouraging healthier practices through education, nutritional supplements, and maternal care, rather than imposing top-down regulations. Similarly, in the game, players adopt profiles that create internal conflicts, forcing them to reconcile the expectations of their assigned organisation with their personal values. Fechter (2016) highlights this tension with the example of an aid worker lamenting, \u201cI wished I could have directed the money to the others… they needed it more. But because of the way the budget was organised, I wasn\u2019t allowed\u201d (p. 7), reflecting how organisational policies can often clash with individual ethics.<\/p>\n

This games exploration of the tensions between adhering to organisational values and navigating morally complex situations can also be found in Redfield\u2019s (2006) article on M\u00e9decins Sans Fronti\u00e8res (MSF) whose founding principles emphasise secular humanitarianism and a commitment to human dignity over neutrality. For MSF, being a \u2018moral witness\u2019 is important: that is bearing witness to suffering and speaking out about injustices encountered during humanitarian work. This principle of t\u00e9moignage (testimony) involves not only providing aid but also actively drawing attention to the political and social conditions causing suffering, even when doing so challenges the neutrality traditionally associated with humanitarianism. Redfield highlights how MSF\u2019s approach often requires navigating the tension between prioritising human dignity and the risks of becoming entangled in political controversies by exposing abuses or advocating for change. For example, when faced with the decision of whether to accept a media offer that seeks to depoliticize a project, players must choose between maintaining neutrality or engaging with political realities\u2014echoing MSF\u2019s shift from a strictly neutral position to one more willing to speak out against injustices. Similarly, the moral dilemma of working with individuals whose actions conflict with one\u2019s values reflects MSF’s evolution in confronting political situations where neutrality becomes untenable, such as during conflicts in Biafra in the 1960s and 1970s. The decision MSF workers had to make during the Rwandan genocide in the 1990s of whether to stay in a refugee camp that may benefit both refugees and potentially harmful groups further echoes the challenges of providing aid without compromising ethical integrity. These are just some examples of the decisions the players will face, capturing the dual role of humanitarian actors as both professionals and moral witnesses, navigating a complex interplay between institutional expectations and personal ethics.<\/p>\n

Our board game provides an interactive way to explore the complexities and ethical dilemmas faced by aid workers. Drawing on anthropological concepts like Moral\/ethical Labour and governmentality, it highlights how both institutional values and personal morals shape aid work. Through role-specific profiles and scenarios that challenge neutrality and ethical clarity, the game sheds light on the contradictions within the \u2018professions of doing good\u2019.\u2019 As players navigate morally complex situations, they face consequences\u2014losing or gaining Jenga pieces\u2014reflecting the unpredictable and ever-changing nature of humanitarian work.<\/p>\n

Bibliography<\/strong><\/p>\n

Dean, M., 2010. Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society<\/em>. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.<\/p>\n

Fechter, A.-M., 2016. Aid work as moral labour. Critique of Anthropology<\/em>, 36(3), pp. 228\u2013243.<\/p>\n

Redfield, P., 2006. A Less Modest Witness: Collective Advocacy and Motivated Truth in a Medical Humanitarian Movement. American Ethnologist<\/em>, 33(1), pp. 3\u201326.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_post_nav _builder_version=”3.0.106″ in_same_term=”off” show_prev=”on” show_next=”on” prev_text=”Previous” next_text=”Next” locked=”on” parent_locked=”off” \/][et_pb_comments _builder_version=”3.0.106″ show_avatar=”on” show_reply=”on” show_count=”on” background_layout=”light” header_font_size_tablet=”51″ header_line_height_tablet=”2″ custom_button=”on” button_icon_placement=”right” button_text_color=”#ffffff” button_use_icon=”off” locked=”on” parent_locked=”off” button_text_size__hover_enabled=”off” button_text_size__hover=”null” button_one_text_size__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_text_size__hover=”null” button_two_text_size__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_text_size__hover=”null” button_text_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_text_color__hover=”null” button_one_text_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_text_color__hover=”null” button_two_text_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_text_color__hover=”null” button_border_width__hover_enabled=”off” button_border_width__hover=”null” button_one_border_width__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_width__hover=”null” button_two_border_width__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_width__hover=”null” button_border_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_border_color__hover=”null” button_one_border_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_color__hover=”null” button_two_border_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_color__hover=”null” button_border_radius__hover_enabled=”off” button_border_radius__hover=”null” button_one_border_radius__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_radius__hover=”null” button_two_border_radius__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_radius__hover=”null” button_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=”off” button_letter_spacing__hover=”null” button_one_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_letter_spacing__hover=”null” button_two_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_letter_spacing__hover=”null” button_bg_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_bg_color__hover=”null” button_one_bg_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_bg_color__hover=”null” button_two_bg_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_bg_color__hover=”null” \/][et_pb_text admin_label=”Related posts” _builder_version=”3.0.106″ background_layout=”light” locked=”on” parent_locked=”off”]<\/p>\n

Related<\/h1>\n\n

[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column_inner][\/et_pb_row_inner][\/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_3″][et_pb_sidebar _builder_version=”3.0.106″ area=”sidebar-1″ orientation=”left” show_border=”off” background_layout=”light” locked=”on” \/][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_section][et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” fullwidth=”on” next_background_color=”#000000″ prev_background_color=”#000000″][et_pb_fullwidth_menu _builder_version=”3.17.6″ menu_id=”7″ submenu_direction=”downwards” fullwidth_menu=”off” background_layout=”dark” module_class=”main-navigation” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial” \/][\/et_pb_section][et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ fullwidth=”off” specialty=”on” prev_background_color=”#000000″ next_background_color=”#000000″ _builder_version=”3.17.6″][et_pb_column type=”2_3″ specialty_columns=”2″][et_pb_row_inner locked=”off”][et_pb_column_inner type=”4_4″ saved_specialty_column_type=”2_3″][et_pb_post_title _builder_version=”3.0.106″ title=”on” meta=”on” author=”on” date=”on” categories=”on” comments=”on” featured_image=”on” featured_placement=”above” text_color=”dark” text_background=”off” locked=”on” parent_locked=”off” \/][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.17.6″ background_layout=”light” parent_locked=”off”]<\/p>\n

Written by Nobusuke Akaike, Charlotte Antilogus, Bethany Croucher, Natalie, Kaza, Tilly Neville, Samson Page, and Madeleine Raggett.<\/p>\n

Aims<\/h1>\n

By the end of the lesson, students will understand:<\/p>\n