Grassroots Humanitarianism: A Concept Note

The concept ‘Grassroots Humanitarianism’ is neither new, nor fixed. It is a dynamic conceptualisation that has been historically integral to the wider theorisation and practices of aid and development (Fechter and Schwittay 2019:1769), insofar that it has been considered the emergent ‘fourth pillar’ of development aid (Develtere and De Bruyn, 2019). Broadly defined, grassroots humanitarianism refers to informal small-scale organisations run by ‘ordinary’ citizens who provide support to those in need, separately from the ‘humanitarian machine’ of formalised, state-sanctioned aid (Sandri, 2018:1772).

This term provides an analytical framework to explain practices that do not fit with UN, NGO or INGO humanitarianism. Given the relative ‘newness’ of this concepts contemporary recognition, it is an ‘unstable category’ (Fechter and Schwittay, 2019: 1170) which has been variously described across, and within, academic disciplines. These descriptions include ‘’Volunteer Humanitarianism’’ (Sandri, 2018), ‘‘Vernacular Humanitarianism’’ (Rozakou, 2017), ‘’Private Development Initiatives’’ (Kinsbergen and Schulpen, 2013) and, more critically, ‘’Amateur Aid’’ (Wall, 2015).

Myriad analogous practices gather under this overarching umbrella category, but they are all essentially encapsulated by the aforementioned definition. The recent and continuing European refugee crisis has meant that central to the theorisation of grassroots humanitarianism is the notion of ‘humanitarian emergency’ (Fechter and Schwittay, 2019:1772). As the populations of asylum seekers increase, a common reason for the rise in grassroots humanitarianism is due to the failure of the state, like ‘renounce[ing] any juridical obligation to recognize the rights of refugees’ (Sandri, 2018:23). This is the case is Northern France, particularly in the former ‘Jungle’ camp, where professional aid is barred and brutal deterrence operations are sanctioned (Tyerman, 2019).

This concept clearly does not have one blue-print humanitarian. The supporters could be any ‘global citizen’ (Meadows, 1991) with individual intersectional motivations and subjectivities and it is no longer strictly people from the Global North helping those in the Global South (Fechter and Schwittay (2019, 1769). Generally, they are characterised by spontaneity (Fechter and Schwittay, 2019:1769 and Schulpen and Huyse, 2017:164) and inexperience in humanitarianism (Sandri, 2018). A key example is civilian boat rescues in the Mediterranean such as the, now international organisation, Migrant Offshore Aid Station which started when one family responded to a shipwreck off the coast of Lampendusa, Italy.

Collectively, these grassroots are presented in two distinct ways, as forms of ‘solidarity’ (Rozakou, 2016 and 2017) and as politicised initiatives with ambiguous responsibilities as promotors of refugees’ most basic rights (McGee and Pelham, 2018:24). It is too simplistic to dichotomize grassroot humanitarianism like this because it is undeniably challenging to avoid politicisation, meaning the two consistently overlap in varied ways, especially in the wake of relentless neoliberalization and the European migrant crisis. All forms are imbued with subversive qualities beyond the ‘the dominant political order’, also affecting the ‘social’ order (Vandervoordt, 2019:245–247). Vandervoodt (2019) identifies seven subversive dimensions of grassroots humanitarianism, most significantly: ‘civil disobedience’, ‘putting minds into motion’ and ‘contending symbolic places and personal bonds’ (263).

Grassroots humanitarianism in Lesvos, Greece envisions egalitarian solidarity (Rozakou, 2016 and 2017) and expresses this by educating asylum seekers of their human rights (Rozakou, 2017), also a common strategy for the Brussels based Citizen’s Platform (Vandervoodt, 2019). The power of political knowledge is used to subvert the governmental regime to protect the ‘national moral imaginary’ (Sandri, 2018:70) and is prime example of the integration of humanitarianism and the political sphere (Fassin, 2005:382). Whereas Greek Solidarians (Rozakou, 2016 and 2017) are subtly subversive, Citizen’s Platform volunteers are more explicit and prioritise solidarity with refugees over adhering to the discourses and actions of their own governments (Vandervoordt, 2019:250–251). To protect refugees from unrelenting police patrols and arrests in public spaces, their volunteers evacuated migrants and formed a human chain in their place (Vandervoordt, 2019:251), a particularly poignant visualisation of their principles of politicised solidarity. It is exactly this lack of neutrality which distinguishes grassroots humanitarianism from professionalised humanitarianism, who are ‘shackled’ by the state (Vandervoordt, 2019:250).

In the context of the European Refugee Crisis, Calais has been particularly significant to the conceptualisation of grassroots humanitarianism due to the emergence of many grassroots in this area in response to the prohibition of official aid. Being the only form of aid in the area, these organisations and their humanitarian principles stand out allowing for a more distinct conceptualisation of grassroot humanitarianism as a separate legitimate phenomenon. The European refugee crisis has thus grounded this concept, enabling the identification and theorisation of other similar practices across the world.

The notion of grassroots humanitarianism is helpful in the sense that is distinguishes these small-scale initiatives from the conglomerate of professionalised aid, promoting a comparison between the two (Vandervoordt, 2019:265). However, is it still too broad and often represents an ‘ideal type’, engendering the potential misrepresentation of the complex social and political subjectivities of each organisation (Vandervoordt, 2019:264). This is exemplified by Sandri (2018) who highlights the specificity of what she calls ‘’Volunteer Humanitarianism’’.

Notwithstanding, this descriptor also conceals the differences between grassroots humanitarian groups, especially regarding political position. This is indicated by how her participants were firm that ‘their mission was humanitarian and not political’ (Sandri, 2018:75), whereas another Calais based grassroots like Play4Calais were comparatively outwardly and intentionally political. Play4Calais uniquely subverted the governments deterrence procedures by building a sport field on the demolition site of the notorious ‘Jungle’ camp (McGee and Pelham, 2018). This aimed to facilitate the social re-engagement of refugees with a space deeply entrenched with symbolism of the destructive French regime, while also reaffirming their ‘political membership’ (McGee and Pelham, 2018:31).

‘’Volunteer Humanitarianism’’ also highlights the tendency to assume grassroots are exclusively ‘volunteers’ carrying out ‘unwaged care for the vulnerable’ (Sandri, 2018:76), undermining the complexity of the modern world and the uniqueness of intersectional lived experiences. It neglects the fact that, though much of the work is voluntary, it might be accompanied by other paid labour or the investment of personal funds to start up projects (Fechter and Schwittay, 2019:1773). Greek solidarians go as far as to reject the label ‘volunteer’ altogether because it is a state-sanctioned term used for bureaucratised humanitarians (Rozakou, 2017). The word ‘humanitarianism’ could itself be considered, albeit more radically, as adhering to governmental common-sense, misrecognising it as merely another ‘Neoliberal project’ (Sandri, 2018:70). Shortcomings aside, it is a useful concept which has illuminated the important humanitarian work of ‘ordinary’ people globally and it will be fundamental to future conceptualisation of more specific forms of the grassroots phenomena which are increasingly evolving.

Bibliography

Develtere, P. and De Bruyn, T. (2009) ‘The emergence of a fourth pillar in development aid, Development in Practice, 19:7, pp.912–922. DOI: 10.1080/09614520903122378.

Fechter, AM and Schwittay, A. (2019) ‘Citizen aid: grassroots interventions in development and humanitarianism’, Third World Quarterly, 40(10), pp. 1769–1780. DOI: 10.1080/01436597.2019.1656062

Kinsbergen, S. and Schulpen, L. (2013) ‘From Tourist to Development Worker. Private Development initiatives in the Netherlands’, Mondes en developpement. 41, pp. 49–62.

McGee, D. and Pelham, J. (2018) ‘Politics at play: locating human rights, refugees and grassroots humanitarianism in the Calais Jungle’, Leisure Studies, 37:1, pp. 22–35. DOI: 10.1080/02614367.2017.1406979.

Rozakou, K. (2016) ‘Socialites of Solidarity: revisiting the gift taboo in times of crises’, Social Anthropology, 24(2), pp. 185–199. DOI: 10.1111/1469–8676.12305

Rozakou, K. (2017) ‘Solidarity #Humanitarianism: The Blurred Boundaries of Humanitarianism in Greece.’ Etnofoor, 29(2), pp.99–104. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26296172.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Ac8550fafcea5b6f02f97b6bb7b0401ed (Accessed: 23 December 2019).

Sandri, E. (2018) ‘‘Volunteer Humanitarianism’: volunteers and humanitarian aid in the Jungle refugee camp of Calais’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(1), pp.65–88. DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2017.1352467

Schulpen, L and Huyse, H. (2017) ‘Editorial: Citizen Initiatives for Global Solidarity. The New Face of European Solidarity’, Forum for Development Studies, 44(2), pp. 163–169. DOI: 10.1080/08039410.2017.1306956.

Meadows, D.H. Global Citizen. Washington DC: Island Press.

Tyerman, T. (2019) ‘Everyday Borders in Calais: The Globally Intimate Injustices of Segregation’. Geopolitics, pp. 1–23. DOI: 10.1080/14650045.2019.1631807.

Vandevoordt, R. (2019) ‘Subversive Humanitarianism: Rethinking Refugee Solidarity through Grass-Roots Initiatives’, Refugee Survey Quarterly, 38, pp. 245–265. DOI: 10.1093/rsq/hdz008.

Wall, I. (2015) ‘Amateur Aid: The Limits of Good Intentions’, The New Humanitarian, 9 September. Available at: http://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/analysis/2015/09/09/amateur-aid-limits-good-intentions (Accessed: 23 December 2019).

Origionally a final year BA Anthropology submission to University of Sussex