4 ms·

The main point the article is making, that not all volunteers are providing a net positive, is an interesting one. I have a problem with her position, though.

The main point the article is making, that not all volunteers are providing a net positive, is an interesting one. I have a problem with her position, though. She ends the article with: "Be smart about traveling and strive to be informed and culturally aware. It’s only through an understanding of the problems communities are facing, and the continued development of skills within that community, that long-term solutions will be created." The problem is that it's hard to be culturally aware and to understand the problems communities are facing if you aren't exposing yourself first hand to those communities. I imagine quite a many useful volunteers, the author included, started off as "voluntourists". And perhaps therein lies the greatest strength of these programs - they help expose little white girls (and boys) to other cultures and problems they otherwise would be unaware of and some percentage of those move on to more useful volunteering. If she is going to advocate the position she's taken, then she could at least end the article with some alternatives for would be volunteers. As is, if anything, she's just alleviating some of the guilt people might feel over not volunteering: "By volunteering I would be causing more harm than good, so the right thing to do is nothing."

jrochkind1 13y ago
> The problem is that it's hard to be culturally aware and to understand the problems communities are facing if you aren't exposing yourself first hand to those communities. Absolutely, and on top of this it takes a while to learn that stuff in an ongoing process, and definitely isn't easy -- you aren't going to learn it in a week's exposure. So that means if one wants to help by 'going there', one should be prepared to make a lengthy and long-term commitment to be there. Likely years. (If not necessarily consecutively). Because for a while you won't be helpful, and it'll take time to increase your helpfulness, as you figure shit out. Be prepared to persist through some of the time will be really challenging. If someone is not ready for that, then maybe 'going there' isn't the right role for them. There are plenty more roles one can take to help, many involving raising/giving money, but also educating oneself and one's neighbors, and other work one can do from one's own location. If someone can't see beyond 'going there' or 'nothing', that's their problem to overcome or be helped to overcome, but it doesn't make it true that 'anything is better than nothing' -- it can be really hard to avoid being useless or harmful in culturally unfamiliar contexts.
gbhn 13y ago
This is a good point. Someone doing mostly-not-effective volunteering isn't there 99% of the time. But that's kind of the point -- they've made a connection and now care about the project. That's got to have ongoing value in terms of things that'll be more helpful (either valuable help or money). Perhaps even sufficient for people who are there 99% of the time to re-lay some brick and call it even.
TeMPOraL 13y ago
> The main point the article is making, that not all volunteers are providing a net positive, is an interesting one. > "By volunteering I would be causing more harm than good, so the right thing to do is nothing." The right thing to do, as she actually points out in passing in the first part of the article, would be to do what you're good at and send the money to a competent organization. http://lesswrong.com/lw/65/money_the_unit_of_caring/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/65/money_the_unit_of_caring/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/6z/purchase_fuzzies_and_utilons_separately/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/6z/purchase_fuzzies_and_utilons_sepa... I remember the Red Cross writing something similar, that basically boiled down to "please stop sending us supply, give us money instead - by sending items you're making our logistics much, much more complicated and deprive the economy of people who need our aid from the money that we'd introduce if we bought stuff locally".
- judk 13y ago
  Where do competent organizations get their staff? Who is motivated to pursue the training for that career?
  - TeMPOraL 13y ago
    They send/hire professionalists on-site for the money people donate.
- isleyaardvark 13y ago
  Less Wrong also published an article arguing the option of: >choosing a career with high direct social value than by choosing a lucrative career with a view toward donating as much as possible. That would cover skilled volunteering efforts. http://lesswrong.com/lw/hjn/earning_to_give_vs_altruistic_career_choice/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/hjn/earning_to_give_vs_altruistic_ca...
  - TeMPOraL 13y ago
    Haven't read that before; thanks for the link!

jrochkind1 13y ago

> The problem is that it's hard to be culturally aware and to understand the problems communities are facing if you aren't exposing yourself first hand to those communities. Absolutely, and on top of this it takes a while to learn that stuff in an ongoing process, and definitely isn't easy -- you aren't going to learn it in a week's exposure. So that means if one wants to help by 'going there', one should be prepared to make a lengthy and long-term commitment to be there. Likely years. (If not necessarily consecutively). Because for a while you won't be helpful, and it'll take time to increase your helpfulness, as you figure shit out. Be prepared to persist through some of the time will be really challenging. If someone is not ready for that, then maybe 'going there' isn't the right role for them. There are plenty more roles one can take to help, many involving raising/giving money, but also educating oneself and one's neighbors, and other work one can do from one's own location. If someone can't see beyond 'going there' or 'nothing', that's their problem to overcome or be helped to overcome, but it doesn't make it true that 'anything is better than nothing' -- it can be really hard to avoid being useless or harmful in culturally unfamiliar contexts.

gbhn 13y ago

This is a good point. Someone doing mostly-not-effective volunteering isn't there 99% of the time. But that's kind of the point -- they've made a connection and now care about the project. That's got to have ongoing value in terms of things that'll be more helpful (either valuable help or money). Perhaps even sufficient for people who are there 99% of the time to re-lay some brick and call it even.

TeMPOraL 13y ago

> The main point the article is making, that not all volunteers are providing a net positive, is an interesting one. > "By volunteering I would be causing more harm than good, so the right thing to do is nothing." The right thing to do, as she actually points out in passing in the first part of the article, would be to do what you're good at and send the money to a competent organization. http://lesswrong.com/lw/65/money_the_unit_of_caring/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/65/money_the_unit_of_caring/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/6z/purchase_fuzzies_and_utilons_separately/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/6z/purchase_fuzzies_and_utilons_sepa... I remember the Red Cross writing something similar, that basically boiled down to "please stop sending us supply, give us money instead - by sending items you're making our logistics much, much more complicated and deprive the economy of people who need our aid from the money that we'd introduce if we bought stuff locally".

judk 13y ago
Where do competent organizations get their staff? Who is motivated to pursue the training for that career?
- TeMPOraL 13y ago
  They send/hire professionalists on-site for the money people donate.
isleyaardvark 13y ago
Less Wrong also published an article arguing the option of: >choosing a career with high direct social value than by choosing a lucrative career with a view toward donating as much as possible. That would cover skilled volunteering efforts. http://lesswrong.com/lw/hjn/earning_to_give_vs_altruistic_career_choice/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/hjn/earning_to_give_vs_altruistic_ca...
- TeMPOraL 13y ago
  Haven't read that before; thanks for the link!