-
Azra Noxx posted an update in the group
White Ally Wannabies 9 years, 3 months ago
So, I have a topic: I have really complex feelings about the terms “White Savior Complex” and “White Savior Industrial Complex.” I really, really hate the way “White Savior Complex” and “White Savior Industrial Complex” have been used recently. The idea of a White Savior Complex is appropriate as it applies to specific programs, NGOs, and plans-of-action such as “Kony 2012” where the ideas at the foundation of the attempt to help are misguided, over-simplified, and prone to hurt matters rather help.
But instead of being used to talk about the actions which can be fixed, and misguided ignorance which can be corrected, people have started using “White Savior Complex” to talk about random would-be allies and their intentions. It’s being used in a very cynical way that assumes that the white people who contribute or donate towards a bad program that fosters dependency or simply causes harm are actually donating because they have a self-aggrandizing need to “Save the Peoples of Africa,” take pictures with starving children and leave feeling smugly self-satisfied for having pretended to do something about it. It makes people who help build schools, or try to participate out of some real desire to help end suffering and decrease world suck into people who think that the people of various communities don’t have the ability to do anything for themselves and only participate because of a base and ugly desire to feel good about themselves over seeming to help. Simply put, when it’s used broadly, it makes attempting to help a self-aggrandizing crime.
And the term “White Savior Industrial Complex” is even worse. It broadens the White Savior Complex (complex I should mention, is psychological disease like the Oedipus Complex). It takes the White Savior Complex and reproduces it on massive scale, which seems to apply it to every white person and their attempt to help. The term industry makes the “complex” not only self-sustaining and over-massive, but makes it seem like a profit-making invention used to line the pockets of some unknowable and evil person who created the industry in the first place. In addition, it uses the word industry in a demeaning way, and seems to classify all industries as evil money eating instruments of doom, which makes me wonder if the people who invented the term think that the Medical Industry is a universally bad thing. Granted, there’s always a few bad apples and horrible people or organizations in every industry, but to say that an entire group of people and an entire broad industry are evil is pessimistic and insulting to those who are doing things right.
WSC and WSIC are shorthands, and as such, are definitely destructive and hurtful because they do create a caricature of white folk being there for the photo-op and the feel-good, but doing more harm than actual good, and minimizes or misses out on their very real and often altruistic desire to actually DO good and alleviate the suffering of people they’ll never meet or hear a ‘thank you’ from.
I guess the “grain of truth” would be the idea that some people who want to help are not doing their “due diligence” to know that the good they try to do is being done in the right way–like throwing money at an organization to feed starving children in some other part of the world without checking in to make sure that said organization isn’t in bed with the corrupt government that’s allowing this to continue? (Am I even on base here?)
That’s about right as a summary. But more accurately, I prefer to never apply WSC to specific people without very, very clear and long running evidence. It’s better applied to specific programs where the plan of action is more likely to either support corrupt governments, or create some form of dependency which would prevent the people being helped from becoming independent and developing into a group that can function properly without external help. Deciding whether that’s true about a program or not is where WSC comes in. It shouldn’t be applied generally to white people, because as you said, it forms a caricature of white folk being there for the photo-op and the feel good.
I guess, in a way, people who are on the receiving end of well-intentioned help would be naive if they assumed the best, though, wouldn’t they? Why would you assume innocent intentions when so many others have presented themselves in the same way and have turned out to be colonizers (in the literal and figurative senses). How sad that idea is.
Also, sorry if my language is a bit in the clouds. At this point I can definitely be called an academic and I’m still learning to not shift my vocabulary higher when I get offended by some perceived insult.
<— guilty of same. Please give me a little lovetap if I do that. In another time and place, I think I would have been a member of the intelligentsia, but that class no longer exists. :)
The terms WSC and WSIC can certainly be misused, just like some people misuse the term racism to undermine arguments about white privilege. My understanding of how WSIC can be used appropriately is that it refers to the phenomenon of using mainstream capitalist tactics and structures to frame a political movement. In that context “industrial” refers to all the trappings of mainstream media and culture that can be used to simplify an issue or even mask details an organization doesn’t want to address.
It doesn’t always have to be done with bad intentions, and probably usually isn’t. The best way to get large-scale awareness of an issue in the US is to, essentially, commodify it, turn it into something catchy and viral (just like regular, for-profit viral marketing). But in doing this, it’s almost impossible to capture the complexity of the issue. It’s actually encouraging people to support a cause without doing research, without questioning the larger causes of the problem. Often, those larger causes are wrapped up with the structure of our society, or with our foreign policy. The WSIC makes it seem easy and convenient to be an activist, by donating some money or by helping a cause go viral. Those tactics aren’t inherently bad. But they make it too easy for people to “take action” without actually learning about and addressing the systems that contribute to the problems in the first place.
In other words, I don’t think the term WSIC actually paints all white people with a bad brush, but it does paint the dominant, mainstream approach to activism with a bad brush.
Here’s the article that first introduced me to the term, in relation to the Kony 2012 movement. It may push some buttons but stick with it, the last paragraphs in particular make the useful definition of the term pretty clear: “What innocent heroes don’t always understand is that they play a useful role for people who have much more cynical motives. The White Savior Industrial Complex is a valve for releasing the unbearable pressures that build in a system built on pillage. We can participate in the economic destruction of Haiti over long years, but when the earthquake strikes it feels good to send $10 each to the rescue fund. I have no opposition, in principle, to such donations (I frequently make them myself), but we must do such things only with awareness of what else is involved. “
I will read the article, but just to comment on the quote: “… I have no opposition, in principle, to such donations (I frequently make them myself), but we must do such things only with awareness of what else is involved. “
That is precisely my point (and it’s funny, this same notion came up in a different context and conversation just Friday): it is incumbent on those who would do good to make sure, to a reasonable extent, that they’re doing it in the best way possible. It’s a sort of corollary to “buyer beware.”
Agreed. It’s not just incumbent on us to research the organizations we support with our money, but also to learn about the links between global/racial inequalities and the way we vote, the resources we rely on, etc. Otherwise, we get lulled into addressing the symptoms of problems without recognizing how we contribute to the causes. That’s the goal of the WSIC – to get people to respond quickly to a certain symptom. It can be well-intentioned or even make a limited positive difference, but that strategy alone isn’t enough.
I’m reminded of that quote that for every hundred people hacking at the branches of evil, only one is striking at the root.
Very good article. Something that I feel the author misses, however, is that he sees the corruption in the Nigerian government, and talks about boilerplate politics here in America, but still seems to believe that by following the pre-set ways of our democracy, we can somehow work miraculous change that will allow us to democratically affect foreign policy. That is to say that the author misses the extent of the corruption and rottenness here at home, and the fact that many people reach out through these NGOs and other organizations precisely because they feel that the government doesn’t speak for them and isn’t doing their will. He’s right, we should work on change here at home, but I truly don’t believe it will come in the way he seems to suggest.
I’ll read the article if I get the time for it (other obligations, unfortunately), but I will just comment that I have great distrust for an argument that the term “Industrial” is being used to talk about mainstream simplifying tactics here. In my experience, it’s almost always been abused in order to speak about intentions and self-serving pretensions. The White Savior Complex certainly applies in some cases, and can be useful in order to start conversations about making sure you support the right people, however I am in general disapointed with the popular ideological stance that demonizes Capitalism or main-stream marketing without considering the power and the reach of those tools. I find that in general, you can’t just say “Corporations are evil” and talk about how they steal resources, or pollute the environment, without looking at why and how we can change those root causes. In some cases, being able to make a better profit doing things ethically enables people to maintain better practices forever whereas governments and NGOs will always eventually run out of money. This is of course, absolutely not intended to imply that corporations do not do evil, they do, but not all of them, and they’re starting to learn that it’s bad business too. (Just a short synopsis about why I distrust arguments which easily buy into the frame of mind that easily uses Industrial as a synonym for bad-at-large-scale)
Well, if you get a chance to read the article, take a look. I don’t think it implies that marketing is inherently evil, or even that capitalism is. My understanding of the argument is that traditional-marketing-style activism can very easily be abused or simply obscure parts of the issues being addressed, usually in ways that support a white savior attitude if people don’t take the time to observe things more objectively. The fact that this type of activism can gain a lot of support has the potential to be both positive and negative, since it’s easily used by groups with problematic motives/goals. That doesn’t mean marketing or capitalist systems can’t ever be used for good (though obviously some people do believe that).
I’d also suggest that there’s a functional difference between the word “industrial” and the term “industrial complex.” Somebody who says all industry is bad is making a different argument than someone who refers to the “military-industrial complex” or the “prison-industrial complex.” Calling something an industrial complex highlights the fact that for-profit concerns have become tied up with something that, on the surface, doesn’t look like a for-profit endeavor. Activism that tries to hand down solutions to problems without examining the systems causing those problems could be called part of a WSIC. That kind of activism tries to make a superficial positive change, but doesn’t make any progress towards addressing privilege, allowing local autonomy, or changing systems.
Admittedly, my only exposure to how people use this term is from essays, I’ve never personally heard it used in conversation, online or off. (I know you mentioned it in some comments on the original AS article but I don’t remember how it came up.) So it’s possible this is a term that’s being used very differently by different people, and doesn’t actually have a useful/generally-agreed-on meaning yet. The quick googling I did today just pulled up articles using it more or less the way the one I linked above does.
The reason White Savior Industrial Complex is so damaging, is that there’s already a term (I forget the exact one) that is something to the affect of the Political-Activism Industrial Complex or the NGO Industrial Complex. When you make the white savior complex into an industrial complex, you make the basic industry and concern that’s being capitalized into an industry defined by self-serving, colonialist, pretensions to saving and civilizing the non-white foreigners. The term white savior has its origins in British Imperial colonialism and the impetus that they should convert all the other people into Christian members of British culture. The history of the term is very violent and speaks entirely about the reasons why someone would do something, rather than the poor actions taking place. I believe the history of a term should be taken into account before we try to redefine it to mean something more neutral, as you appear to intend.
That is another version of “White Savior Industrial Complex” yes. Although it does include the history and weird moral justifications of the White Savior idea at it’s origins.