international development may be more depressing than international politics

[intertribal]

Jon Krakauer has produced an investigative expose of Greg Mortenson and his memoirs about building schools in Afghanistan, Three Cups of Tea and Stones Into Schools (available for free at byliner until April 20th).  Krakauer seems mostly pissed off because the dramatic story was used to solicit donations for the Central Asia Institute - Krakauer

Comments

[intertribal]

When I told my mother, the first thing she said was "well, the Republicans would have a field day with that." Krakauer does give links to other charities who are doing similar things, but have been doing them for longer and have more of a sense of what they're doing, including the people that originally funded the CAI.

I am sympathetic to NGOs and the challenges they have, and I don't think they're doing anything worse than what government projects do. On the other hand, they're not a cure-all, and in this case, I actually do disagree that building schools will stop terrorism. I think that's misinformation, so it frustrates me. Is building schools good? Sure. But he's not "fighting a war with the Taliban every time he builds a school."

One of my favorite poli sci articles is "Conserving Nature in the State of Nature: The Politics of INGO Policy Implementation" by Deborah Avant, and it's about what environmental groups (ex. the WWF) do when their principles come into conflict - she concludes that despite being motivated to "do good," they end up doing the same things any world actor would do.

[asakiyume]

At its most basic, I think it gets down to: people are human, and any problematic tendencies that people have will show up in any human endeavor--altruistic ones as much as self-serving ones. That, and difficult situations are difficult, and complex situations are complex, and not amenable to simple fixes.

Self criticism and pointful criticism of others is useful when it helps make people work harder and better, when it reveals abuses and thereby gets people to try to correct them. But it's bad if it leads to a sense of helplessness, fatalism, or corrosive cynicism. Not to say that that's what this particular exposé does--just that it's sometimes a hard line to tread, for me personally.

[intertribal]

I think Krakauer is quite careful with that - he's not at all "see, see, doomed to fail!" He's a philanthropist himself, but he's a careful philanthropist - he got worried when people on the board of directors quit, so he asked them why. I think he was being a responsible stakeholder, and I wish more people cared enough to follow through on charity they give.

I think this wouldn't be such an issue if NGOs were more of a fact of life in society, if they weren't propped up as nouveau-Gandhi and they didn't all get Peace Prize nominations and talk show invites. If we could just collectively say, "it's not extraordinary and superhuman to try to do something for the betterment of others." And when things like this happen, we could say, "Okay, your way isn't working so well. Try this," or "Maybe that's not such a good approach to this problem after all." And it wouldn't have to be this scandal, because they weren't expected to be Angelic Good in the first place.

I really don't believe, though, that protecting "false idols" is the way to get to that point.

[asakiyume]

I totally agree with your second paragraph, and I'm glad to hear what you say in your first paragraph. And I agree with the third paragraph too, for sure. I guess it just smarts to hear bad things about someone you admired, and it smarts also to be, well, taken for dumb-clod American for believing it? ... and I do think it's as important to be as cautious about believing tales of a person's flaws and cheating as it is to be cautious about believing tales of their remarkable accomplishments . . . though I probably wouldn't mention that fact if we were talking about Jeffrey Skilling and Enron--what I mean is, my even bringing up the need to be cautious is prompted by my feeling bad that Mortenson's not all he could be. Even though I knew he had failings.

I think I'd like to just linger on your second paragraph, because that's the way forward. I can put aside my own disappointment and think about "Okay, your way isn't working so well. Try this." Because there's always a "Try this," if we look for it.

[intertribal]

Yeah, I understand. I don't think you're dumb-clod American for believing it, any more than I'm a dumb-clod American for believing whole-heartedly that an Obama administration would fundamentally change the way America runs (and, you know, those were bigger stakes). And it sucks for sure to have to say "damn, I misjudged you," but that really is all it is. It's just as human as their failings.

I think that may be why I look up to writers and even academics instead of anyone in politics or NGOs - their entire contribution is really just their written work. Of course, that puts the onus on you, the reader, to keep it going, but I think that's constructive. There's always a "Try this." Or even a "Fail better." Cuz it's the light that you're following, to be a little cheesy, not a particular lantern.