What's So Wrong with Paternalism?

We began OJM as an experimental attempt to undo a centuries-old model of orphan care. We distinguished the two models according to their distinct motives. The traditional paradigm is “refuge-based” while what we were proposing is “released-based”. The first is driven by the present need while the latter looks through the present to the future. A model that is focused on providing refuge has no necessary outcome other than orphans being loved and protected. What we wanted to pursue was outcome-based orphan care. It was our conclusion that the release-based approach provides a clearer purpose, and a healthier long-term context for the task of caring for the fatherless in their distress.

What we are interested in is a transition not a replacement. We recognize that where poverty and disease have shattered the social/economic infrastructure, there is the initial need for refuge. Charity—providing food and safety for today is necessary, but we wanted to move the focus from the orphan’s present crisis to their future: setting them on a path toward a concrete hope for a productive future. And we wanted to accomplish this goal without it being umbilically dependent upon an eternal fount of western charity. So, we had to think a lot about how to avoid perpetuating cycles of charitable co-dependence and a welfare mentality which western philanthropy and Christian compassion have inadvertently created in the developing world.

The superiority of focusing on release rather than refuge was not immediately self evident. It first struck me when I heard that the unemployment rate in Uganda, where we were becoming involved, was over 80%. I was already committed to the theory of sustainabilty which forces us to (re)think charitable work though the primary grid of self-reliance. It guides the philanthropic venture with the following primary questions: how quickly can we make ourselves irrelevant? How can we help our partners make this a venture that does not require outside resources for success? It is a paradigm that encourages independence rather than an unhealthy (co)dependence.

The mantra is that of avoiding paternalism, promoting personal dignity rather than a passive victim mentality. It places a premium on collaboration and rejects the traditional charitable mentality of unilateral and indefinite provision of funds and expertise which treats its recipients as helpless, inept and (subtly) inferior to the donor.

So, from the outset we have sought to avoid paternalism like the plague. But, recently in a board meeting I had to rethink my prejudice. The question was stark: Is paternalism necessarily evil? Paternalism, in its most neutral context, is where a person in power (like a father –pater in Latin) makes decisions on behalf of others, for their own good. This attitude is demonstrated when we tell those we wish to help what they need and how to fix what we believe needs to be fixed. This is why we have been working so hard at creating a relationship in which the initiatives are local. We want to work together to address the issues that our partners (not we) believe to be primary.

But is it always wrong to communicate (“impose”) our opinion over theirs? Consider water for example, those of us on this side of the ocean know that clean water is essential, but because of a lack of education, our partners may conclude that dispensing medications for stomach ailments is most important. Is it paternalistic to explain that clean water trumps their primary agenda item? On the other hand, is it paternalistic for us to explain that your rural school needs books (first) rather than the laptops you’ve seen in the capital or on television?

These questions may provide a good place to start: What are anti-paternalists seeking to avoid? Is it the word or an underlying attitude? Is paternalism inherently oppressive? Is it ever acceptable?