Tim Høiland
14Mar/12Off

Principles of engagement with indigenous peoples

Recently I rediscovered an article that for some reason I never got around to blogging about when I first read it last December. But once again it struck me as something really important to consider for anyone working (or supporting work) among the poor, and especially among indigenous populations. While the article focuses specifically on NGOs, I’d suggest it’s just as applicable for traditional Christian mission organizations as well.

Summarizing a talk at Harvard’s Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations given by Cornell University’s Carol Kalafatic, Elisa Peter writes about the need for NGOs to consider the principles underlying the work they do among and alongside indigenous peoples. As Kalafatic said, “It has become profitable to look ‘indigenous peoples friendly’ but many NGOs only pay lip service to the priorities and rights of indigenous peoples, especially if they don’t fit into the NGO’s organizational goals and culture.”

So, what would it look like to do community development or mission work in these contexts while truly honoring the dignity of indigenous peoples, not just paying lip service to the idea? Kalafatic suggests we consider four principles:

1. An honest examination of power relationships. NGOs are often the ones initiating cooperation with indigenous communities. Most of them already have a set agenda, which may not correspond to indigenous peoples’ needs and priorities. It is important that indigenous peoples are able to enter the relationship on their own terms and at their own pace, in keeping with the principle of self-determination.
2. A readiness to question assumptions. NGOs and indigenous peoples have different ways of setting and achieving goals, different paradigms, knowledge systems, governance institutions, worldviews, working cultures, etc. It is important that the transfer of knowledge is bidirectional with all parties willing to truly listen and learn.
3. A shift from viewing indigenous peoples as stakeholders to rights holders. Some NGOs view indigenous communities as victims, recipients of social services or one group among others to be consulted during a project. Others idealize them without understanding the complex nature of indigenous peoples’ unique history, culture and socio-political heritage. This too often leads to cooptation and a breakdown in the relationship. Indigenous peoples have universal human rights and collective rights based primarily on the special relationship they have with their traditional lands and territories. A rights-based approach is key to a successful collaboration between indigenous peoples and their partners.
4. A long-term commitment to trust and relationship building. Many indigenous communities may be distrustful of the purpose of collaboration. NGOs may get frustrated by the need to follow the decision making protocols of indigenous peoples’ customary governance systems, which does not nicely fit into the NGOs’ and their donors’ logical frameworks, timetables and deadlines. But sacrificing relationship building in the name of efficiency often leads to more mistrust and a failed collaboration in the long run. NGOs need to allocate the time necessary to meet indigenous peoples on their own terms. This may involve a fundamental shift in the NGO organizational culture.

As I said, I think any organization that’s serious about honoring the dignity of those they serve would do well to give serious thought to these principles. And Christians, in my view, should be leading the way. If we believe that every person, regardless of religion or socioeconomic status, is created in the image of God and that each culture can glorify God in unique ways, we already have all the motivation we need to take this seriously.

We need to guard against abusive power relationships that rob the gospel of its radical message of grace and love; we must be willing to question assumptions rooted in our Western mindset that may be more harmful than helpful; we need to consider how a rights-based approach might go further than a typical stakeholder model; and we need to do the long, hard work of building trust in relationships.

If you work for an NGO or a mission agency, does your organization prioritize these kinds of principles? If you support the work of any NGOs or other ministries working among the poor, do you know how those organizations ensure that they affirm the dignity and full participation of those they serve?

[Photo credit: tennessean.com - the photo shows Jars of Clay in Kenya as part of a slideshow of the band's work with Blood:Water Mission; I chose the photo because I think it portrays the dignity of those being served by Blood:Water's work, and shows Westerners joining in the "dance" of the local community, rather than outsiders expecting the local community to simply march to the beat of their own Western drum.]

2Mar/12Off

Repaso: Voting questions; Latinos & the environment; conservatives & immigration; evangelicals overseas; Lancaster, PA

1. Four important voting questions
Gideon Strauss suggests four questions that gospel-motivated citizens should consider when voting, but that his 11-year-old self wouldn’t have considered: Will this candidate help rehumanize American political life? Will this candidate help Americans of differing convictions to coexist more peaceably? Will this candidate help American communities and institutions toward a more symphonic justice? How does this candidate talk? These are important considerations in an election year.

2. Latinos and environmental stewardship
A Fox News Latino article takes a look at Latino support for legislation related to climate change, indicating that in addition to immigration, education and jobs, Latinos are also very concerned about environmental issues:

A 2010 study by Yale and George Mason universities found 66 percent of Latinos considered climate change a “high” or “very high” priority for the president and Congress to address, compared to 48 percent of non-Latino whites... Latinos viewed several forms of environmental damage, including air pollution and toxic waste, as a more pressing issue than whites did... Quintero said Latinos are less likely to question climate change because they have more contact with countries in Latin America that lie closer to the equator, where the repercussions are more evident. “The reason that Latinos believe and see the reality of climate change is because they live it,” Quintero said. “These impacts are very real and they’re costing lives and they're costing jobs.”

3. Conservative evangelicals and immigration
Ali Noorani writes for CNN about a recent conference in Alabama focused on immigration from a biblical perspective and changes taking place among ordinary conservatives and evangelicals:

If you think all conservatives support a deportation-only approach to immigration, think again. Last week, hundreds of conservative evangelicals gathered in Alabama to engage in a reasonable, respectful discourse on immigration. You read that right. Less than a year after Alabama enacted the strictest immigration law in the land, evangelical students, pastors and national faith leaders gathered at Samford University in Birmingham for "a Christ-centered conversation on immigration" called the G92 South Immigration Conference... A fundamental shift is occurring among conservatives toward a new consensus on immigrants and America. These are the early steps in a march by Americans of all political stripes fed up with partisan attacks on immigrants and immigration -- a groundswell ready and willing to skewer political extremism from either side of the aisle.

4. U.S. evangelicals’ overseas focus
Karl Zinsmeister writes in Philanthropy Magazine about how evangelicals in the U.S. are becoming more and more actively involved in overseas ministry, looking at different denominations and faith-based NGOs. The piece covers a lot of interesting ground, but here’s an interesting blurb:

While smart government agencies and secular NGOs often hire local workers to help them navigate crucial cultural nuances, Christian aid generally takes place in close partnership with indigenous church members. Those partners, who are both local and motivated by religious conviction, are especially good at opening doors, establishing trust, and mobilizing communities. That’s why AIDS care, health clinics, schooling, and similar assistance provided by Christian philanthropists and volunteers is frequently more transformational than aid delivered by other organizations. (Recognizing this advantage, some governments and NGOs seek out partnerships with religious philanthropies—as happened with AIDS assistance during the Bush administration.)

5. Lancaster, PA does it again
Yep, a new study shows that well-being is higher in the Lancaster metro area than in any other metro area in the country. Though I no longer live there, that finding makes me happy. It really is a great little city. Daniel Klotz has good analysis at his Lancaster, PA Blog.

Repaso is intended as a thought-provoking compilation of news and commentary from the past week related to the intersections of faith, development, justice and peace. As always, I welcome your thoughts on any of the links and ideas in this roundup!

[Photo credit: storiesofusa.com]

20Feb/12Off

Christianity Today tackles poverty and development

This month Christianity Today's cover story is focused on international development. CT's editor-in-chief David Neff introduces the issue by mentioning the unique historical moment in which we find ourselves, exemplified by the 58: campaign, a collaboration of Christian relief and development organizations making the bold claim that we as Christians can end extreme poverty. I praised and critiqued the campaign's book here.

The 58: campaign raises some important questions, and so does CT's two-part cover story. For instance, What sorts of development initiatives really work? And as Christians, how do we understand the proper roles of governments and individuals in alleviating poverty? Those are good questions to consider.

First, the roles. Mark Galli, CT's senior managing editor and author of several books, writes in "The Best Ways to Fight Poverty -- Really" that while good macroeconomic policies have lifted millions out of poverty in places like India and China, as Christians we shouldn't underestimate the significance of small, relational acts of neighborliness toward those in need wherever we are. This, of course, is something the state is too clumsy to do, though he suggests governments do have a role to play in creating good economic environments, and I'd agree. The government getting out of the way is essential for economic growth in many ways, but the state also has a responsibility to uphold justice, particularly for the vulnerable, and this has definite economic implications. Finding that balance is a source of contention for many on both sides of the aisle, but it's essential that we try. While I wouldn't consider Galli a development expert (and I don't think he'd claim to be one), I do think he gives all of us some good food for thought nonetheless.

Second, the practicalities. Bruce Wydick, an economist at the University of San Francisco, writes "Cost-Effective Compassion." Wydick is a development expert, and a Christian too. He surveyed a number of fellow development economists at places like Duke, Yale, Stanford and the World Bank, asking them to rank in terms of cost-effectiveness and impact ten approaches to poverty intervention that ordinary donors are commonly asked to support. The findings may surprise you: providing clean water, funding de-worming programs for children, and providing mosquito nets ranked as the three most effective approaches, with child sponsorship coming in at number four. Buying fair trade coffee and providing laptops for children were the two that came in with the lowest rankings.

At the end of the piece, Wydick offers some good take-aways -- things that all of us should keep in mind when seeking to do the most good with the money we give. Most important, I think, is his point that great marketing doesn't necessarily mean any given anti-poverty strategy is a good one; so it's always good to do your research before giving. Additionally, judging organizations merely on the basis of the percentage of donor money spent on programs (as opposed to funds used for marketing and other overhead costs) isn't enough; we need rigorous, independent scrutiny of programs to show whether those programs actually do any good, and whether they might also do some harm.

I'm grateful that a magazine like CT would give this topic such prominence, and I do hope you'll read both parts of the cover story in full. As Wydick emphasizes, it's good to be educated about which initiatives and campaigns work and which ones aren't as good of an "investment." But it's also important to be reminded that an over-emphasis on pragmatism -- an obsession with "what works" -- can paradoxically be dehumanizing. People shouldn't be viewed as projects, after all.

What are your reactions to these two perspectives on development from CT? Does any of it change how you'll engage with issues of poverty? Does it change which projects or organizations you'll support? Do you think it's possible for NGOs to pursue "what works" while also keeping front and center the need to honor the dignity of those they serve?

[Photo credit: Blood Water Mission via permissiontoperuse.com]