Criticism has turned voluntourism into an image of destruction; naïve, privileged, 20-somethings drop in to a community, take advantage of its residents, and fly out again with a nice new addition to their resume, without a care in the world for the trail of injury left behind them.
If only they would turn around and see what they’d done.
Voluntourism does have its downfalls, but this view of the volunteer as an ignorant source of damage is equally as skewed as the volunteer who thinks themself a godsend.
Several criticisms have been made of voluntourism and the ethics of its practice: Volunteers place an extra demand on scarce community resources; programs run by foreign organisations do not address the needs of the local community; programs which only run for a short matter of weeks give only the illusion of progress without any long-term development. In this analysis there is too great a focus on the experience of the volunteer rather than on the people they are supposedly helping.
These concerns are valid – they do not stem from nowhere. But the resulting denouncement of voluntourism as a whole neglects to consider several things: Not all programs are so ethically questionable – many in-country organisations are run by and for local residents and work in line with the needs of the communities they represent. Further, there are economic and social benefits of voluntourism that get overlooked in amongst the flurry of condemnation.
Mr James Kange Nadiope, Co-ordinator of International Volunteers Network in Uganda, has spent several years placing international volunteers in programs throughout Uganda. IVN is a small in-country organisation, and its Ugandan directors are in a better position than most to determine the needs of their own local communities.
Mr Nadiope points out some of the advantages of inviting foreign volunteers into his community, spanning economic and social reasons.
“Volunteers contribute to the national growth and development to the economy especially in the tourism industry”, he said.
The impact of voluntourists on the local tourism industries of developing countries is a substantial yet overlooked benefit. Volunteers buy food, resources, and locally-made products and crafts, all of which is money going into the local economy. As these small communities are incapable of facilitating mass tourism, volunteer tourists offer a more sustainable alternative by feeding the local economies with a smaller tourist market.
Mr Nadiope also speaks of the value of the cultural exchange facilitated by voluntourism.
“International volunteers break the cycle of cultural phobia and professional culture biases that hinder global integration leading to tolerance and better understanding of the similarities and differences amongst cultures,” he said.
The problem here is when volunteers go in to programs with a heightened sense of their own value, creating the “us and them” mentality. The potential for cultural understanding is weakened by preconceived ideas that they are victims, and we are coming to pull them out of their tragedy. However the answer then is not to scorn those who go in holding these notions. It is to encourage those who do volunteer to go with an open mind, willing to consider any adverse effects of their actions or attitudes and promote a mutual respect and cultural understanding.
As Nadiope states, “no volunteer is immune to unprofessionalism”, but “with proper preparation and vigilance, all volunteers are capable of ethical, professional conduct.”
With this type of volunteer, says Mr Nadiope, voluntourism “fosters mutual sharing of cultural aspects associated with today’s globalisation.”
Voluntourism is by no means a stand-alone answer to inequalities in global development, but it does have its part to play. Critical evaluation of voluntourism practices is necessary to keep programs transparent and promote honest and effective volunteering. But the criticism should not go so far as to obscure the economic and cultural benefits gained by developing communities from these programs.
Saying voluntourism causes nothing but damage is as short-sighted as hailing it the answer to global poverty. It’s time to start evaluating which parts work and which don’t, and then we can start making some real progress.
