The New Humanitarianism; the modish Collective Consciousness

A transformed Humanitarian concept from the Grassroots Public to Political Globalization


This article was originally published in Data Driven Investor

Photo by Jesse Schoff on Unsplash

Humanitarianism is a heated sentiment in the merit of human existence. It is the state of harmony where human beings exercise compassion by providing physical and moral assistance to their fellow humans.

A humanitarian strives to improve the circumstances of tenderness for the sake of ethical, philanthropic, and logical explanations.

Traditionally, humanity has been the grassroots or collective consciousness function on a limited scale with purely geographic boundaries. But for almost half a century, the role of humanitarianism has been taking the form of a much larger scale with more diverse forms of borders and boundaries. The process of benevolence today is much more sophisticated and vaster so that it has taken a political image on the global stage. Furthermore, there are many more prominent players in the so-called" New Humanitarianism."

Today humanitarianism and socioeconomic crisis are merely dictated by international and international political attitudes. Hence, the "New Humanitarianism" depicts a government-led switch from humanitarian relief as a right to a new system crafted by consequentialist ethics.

The New humanitarians dismiss the yore's political naivety and believe in the perpetual validation of humanitarian aid's long-term political consequence. They are apt to recognize humanitarian relief used as a tool to accomplish human rights while assuring their political objectives.

The recent Semantic Shift in the Humanitarian Concept

Humanitarianism stands as an everyday practice doctrine where people must promote human welfare. It is founded on a belief that all human existences warrant respect and stature and should be dealt with accordingly. Humanism rejects the notion of the "us vs. them" mentality that characterizes ethnocentrism and tribalism. But the new definition reflects anything but that!

Photo by Hanna Morris on Unsplash

For instance, the Syrian conflict in Mideast has drawn overwhelming media attention in the sociopolitical stage for the past decades. Still, the major international players always overlook disputes such as the genocides happening in Yemen over hotties and Myanmar in east Asia. Global sanguinity about Myanmar's fledgling democratization and the peace process has shifted many Western donors towards the 'normalization' of aid ties with the former pariah state. However, these transitions are not discerned as an improvement by community-based health groups, which operate under para-state governance systems in the boundaries. Instead, these institutions' fellows often describe the arising 'development' paradigm in Myanmar as doing more harm than good. The latter discrepancies are the epitome of political meddling in the prevailing humanitarian efforts and the role of politics, government, and collective approach to who gets proper humanitarian aid, how, and under what condition.

Such a semantic shift also underscores the role of corporations and corporate-backed philanthropists in the political realm.

The Classical vs. Resilience Humanitarianism

Classical humanitarianism is grounded in the notion of exceptionalism. On the other hand, resilient humanitarianism dawns on the hypothesis, assuming crisis as the new normalcy. The two paradigms produce incongruent portrayals about world dilemmas, local establishments, and; humanitarian relief recipients. The 'classical Dunantist paradigm has been corresponded and partly surpassed by a radically varied archetype, i.e., the 'resilience paradigm.

Classical humanitarianism focuses on aid; the resilience counterpart concentrates on local response capacities. Although both of the latter scenarios have powerful reasoning that dictates a particular way of seeing the landscape of the crisis, i.e., the humanitarian strategy, none less, they result in different bodies of practice. The resilience paradigm lays on the idea that people, communities, and societies can alter tragic life events and disasters. Hence, in resilience, disaster, rather than being a total and immobilizing upheaval, can become an event where people seek continuity by using their resources to adapt. As elaborated above, classic humanitarianism is framed around the idea of a strict separation between predicament and normality.

The New Humanitarianism is the following further Collective Action.

The concept of "humanitarian" assistance as being pure and nonpolitical is utter fiction. The United States and many other countries have established that clearly within their chronology of track records. Particularly with regards to U.S. policies, humanitarianism has always been about national security interests. Since the 1950s, the idea of international philanthropy has always been the subject of considerable controversy. Some believe that the root causes of human rebelliousness rest in poverty, disempowerment, and inherited inequality. Hence aid could alter the distribution of rights. Despite the argument, the modern-day corporate-led globalist initiatives, initially a classic humanitarian system, have turned into a Neo-Feudal movement. Only with a minor semantic drift, the humanitarian cause of action has lost the argument to those who sponsored a combination of military action with aid instituted in reverence for traditionally emerged political authorities, technical and opposed to redistribution of wealth and resources. The new humanitarianism and its resilience version have been adapted by the Politicians and recently by the non-Governmental entities (primarily by corporate entities) as the new collective norm, only this time at the terms of a different group of people's substitute wits.

Global Introduction of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) as a Fundamental Player in the New Humanitarianism

By the culmination of the Cold War and the upsurge of globalism, the Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) role has become increasingly prominent, particularly in world politics. Of course, the humanitarian systems' original mission is to stay politically neutral amidst increasing global tension. Due to their work's nature, they often struggles to remain effective amid complex political, military, and social dynamics. Therefore, some corporations have decided to join the various administrations' political campaigns rather than staying passive. The latter entities are a few and typically have large-scale operations such as insurance companies, financial institutions, Big Data industries, and social media.

Photo by Specna Arms on Unsplash

Despite the emergence of Humanitarian actors on the global stage, they have become subject to a progressively more rigorous critical analysis, with many thinkers questioning the effectiveness of their efforts. Indeed, aid operations in Darfur, Afghanistan, Serbia, Somalia, and Rwanda have been accused of provoking local insecurities.

New humanitarianism', a covered code for militarized interventionism

Protecting commoners and helpless crowds from the aggression, violation, and abuse of war have been the emphasis of debate for quite some time. Over the last few decades, there has been a reiterated approach for philanthropic intervention to protect civilian members of society from the threats of armed dispute.

Without proceeding into the extreme, It is the dominant percept that, with the