Counterproductive emotional blackmail engendering worldwide indifference (Part #1)
The increasing impact of winter in the Northern Hemisphere has obvious consequences for the hundreds of thousands in refugee camps lacking many facilities, or having none at all. Diffusion of images of those starving in camps in freezing temperatures -- subject to embargos on delivery of foodstuffs -- increases recognition of the dimensions of the humanitarian crisis and the urgency of a solution (Heartbreaking video shows starving Syrian children as true horror of war is unveiled, Mirror, 7 January 2016; Madaya, besieged Syrian town, plagued by starvation as winter takes hold, CBCNews, 7 January 2016; Families Facing Starvation and Famine in Madaya, Syria, Revolution News, 6 January 2016).
International institutions and agencies, who derive their income from associating themselves with those suffering, are clearly most articulate in the urgency of their appeals. Framed as an humanitarian emergency, the unquestionable need to act now is simply stated. Considered reflection is an irresponsible, luxurious indulgence when people are dying. The focus is on the short-term. Any case for long-term reflection can be brushed aside as a matter for the future -- after the current challenge has been addressed. The message is: This is urgent. People are dying. Nothing else matters. Or, more simply: Don't think; Just give.
Such urgency can be seen as a "trump card", outranking all other considerations, through which starving children are used as a "humanitarian shield" obscuring other agendas, whether appropriate or dubious. Starvation is effectively exploited as a question blocker and a learning inhibitor.
This can be seen as a tactic of humanitarian hypocrisy. Such an argument is offensive, but necessarily so -- for so are the images of the starving children, when no thought whatsoever is given to how their situation arose, nor to why it will continue to be repeated in the future. Images of starvation become a propaganda tool (Starvation as a tool of war in Syria, Al Jazeera, 3 Jan 2016).
There is however another consequence to dissemination of such images. People worldwide are increasingly aware of the probability of token response to humanitarian appeals. The numbers suffering from starvation, lack of shelter, and related illnesses continue to increase. Those making appeals place themselves on the moral high ground in doing so. Those who fail to respond are made to feel increasingly guilty. Those responsible for the situation evade all attention.
The defensive reaction by those to whom appeals are made in response to repeated crises of that kind is however poorly recognized. The response is one of increasing indifference, as may be variously recognized (Indifference to the Suffering of Others: occupying the moral and ethical high ground through doublespeak, 2013). The issue is complicated by perceived risk of undue implication, as clarified in a country with no lack of suffering, and with some of the world's most dangerous roads. Victims are all too often left to fend for themselves (If no-one helps you after a car crash in India, this is why, BBC News, 7 June 2016).
Repeated exposure to images of severe suffering engenders psychic numbing (Paul Slovic, Psychic Numbing and Genocide, American Psychological Associations, November 2007; David Hicks and Andy Bord, Learning about Global Issues: why most educators only make things worse, Environmental Education Research, 2001). Suffering somewhere is becoming the new norm with which all must deal on a daily basis. However suffering elsewhere can be more readily framed as an unacceptable evil for which others are responsible. As with universal condemnation of apartheid, however, it is especially convenient that it be a focus for attention on another continent -- displacing attention from the challenge of discrimination and suffering in the immediate environment.
The increasing number of beggars in the streets of developed countries emphasizes the dilemmas, as with the arrival of refugees migrating from afar (Responding to begging: compassion, emotional blackmail and risk of being duped?, 2015). Why should starvation imagery from elsewhere evoke a response when daily exposure to local suffering is a matter of habitual indifference, however much it may be conscientiously deplored?
The question here is how to move beyond the unreflective emotional blackmail practiced by those making appeals -- framed by images of the displaced, the starving, and the dying. Who learns from humanitarian disaster and what is it they learn? Why is there such systematic avoidance of what is to be learned from such situations in order to reduce their occurrence in the future?