What do you think?
Rate this book
Empire of Humanity: A History of Humanitarianism
Empire of Humanity explores humanitarianism’s remarkable growth from its humble origins in the early nineteenth century to its current prominence in global life. In contrast to most contemporary accounts of humanitarianism that concentrate on the last two decades, Michael Barnett ties the past to the present, connecting the antislavery and missionary movements of the nineteenth century to today’s peacebuilding missions, the Cold War interventions in places like Biafra and Cambodia to post–Cold War humanitarian operations in regions such as the Great Lakes of Africa and the Balkans; and the creation of the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1863 to the emergence of the major international humanitarian organizations of the twentieth century. Based on extensive archival work, close encounters with many of today’s leading international agencies, and interviews with dozens of aid workers in the field and at headquarters, Empire of Humanity provides a history that is both global and intimate. Avoiding both romanticism and cynicism, Empire of Humanity explores humanitarianism’s enduring themes, trends, and, most strikingly, ethical ambiguities. Humanitarianism hopes to change the world, but the world has left its mark on humanitarianism. Humanitarianism has undergone three distinct global ages―imperial, postcolonial, and liberal―each of which has shaped what humanitarianism can do and what it is. The world has produced not one humanitarianism, but instead varieties of humanitarianism. Furthermore, Barnett observes that the world of humanitarianism is divided between an emergency camp that wants to save lives and nothing else and an alchemist camp that wants to remove the causes of suffering. These camps offer different visions of what are the purpose and principles of humanitarianism, and, accordingly respond differently to the same global challenges and humanitarianism emergencies. Humanitarianism has developed a metropolis of global institutions of care, amounting to a global governance of humanity. This humanitarian governance, Barnett observes, is an empire of it exercises power over the very individuals it hopes to emancipate. Although many use humanitarianism as a symbol of moral progress, Barnett provocatively argues that humanitarianism has undergone its most impressive gains after moments of radical inhumanity, when the "international community" believes that it must atone for its sins and reduce the breach between what we do and who we think we are. Humanitarianism is not only about the needs of its beneficiaries; it also is about the needs of the compassionate.
312 pages, Hardcover
First published March 3, 2011
25 people are currently reading
297 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
November 25, 2016
A good tour de horizon of the various forms that humanitarianism has taken, along with deep dives into key episodes in which humanitarianism changed its shape and rationales. As the title indicates, Barnett takes a nuanced view, that humanitarianism is in some ways a successor to empire's paternalism, but also is a literally kinder and gentler version of empire. Barnett has a tripartite periodization:
* 'imperial humanitarianism' (1800-1945) - whose guiding trope was 'civilization' and which worked in support of the colonial project
* 'neo-humanitarianism' (1945-1989) - whose guiding trope was 'development' (and is perhaps better termed Cold War humanitarianism)
* 'liberal humanitarianism' (1990- ) - whose guiding trope is human rights and R2P (and is perhaps better termed neoliberal humanitarianism)
He also distinguishes between "emergency humanitarianism," which focuses on immediate relief of suffering, and "alchemical humanitarianism," which attempts to address "root causes" of suffering. Finally, he discusses the vexed relationship that humanitarianism has had with politics, on the one claiming that their warrant to operate in the midst of conflict zones is rooted in their apolitical commitment to the trio of impartiality, neutrality, and independence, and the increasing realization that the long-term alleviation of suffering cannot take place outside a framework that addresses the politics of omission or commission that generate the suffering. (These two views map closely but not perfectly onto the emergency v. alchemical distinction.)
Finally, although he does not explore the topic explicitly, the book is an essential read for those seeking to understand how development, human rights, and humanitarianism, which each began in drastically different institutional contexts and ethical imperatives, have increasingly merged since the end of the Cold War. In doing so, the concept of sovereignty, so sacrosanct in the immediate post-colonial period, as the newly independent states attempted to assert their liberation from the colonial yoke, began once again to be explicitly questioned or rejected, as Kofi Annan posited the explicitly anti-Westphalian concept of the "sovereignty of the people" being invokable from abroad to trump the "sovereignty of states" -- a project which reaches is culmination in the Kosovo intervention, which then in turn becomes a mechanism for the Bush regime to justify its invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003.
Written in 2010, it was perhaps slightly too soon to render a perfect judgment of the ironic effects of humanitarian and human rights discourse on the course of support for the Iraq War, but with six extra years of hindsight, it is now quite apparent that the coherence of the ethical foundations of human rights and humanitarianism (as well as development) have been largely destroyed by the variable reactions of the West to the divers killing fields of the 21st century Middle East. And yet, the reach of these three institutional archipelagos has arguably never been wider, and so it is clear that the last chapters have yet to be written.
* 'imperial humanitarianism' (1800-1945) - whose guiding trope was 'civilization' and which worked in support of the colonial project
* 'neo-humanitarianism' (1945-1989) - whose guiding trope was 'development' (and is perhaps better termed Cold War humanitarianism)
* 'liberal humanitarianism' (1990- ) - whose guiding trope is human rights and R2P (and is perhaps better termed neoliberal humanitarianism)
He also distinguishes between "emergency humanitarianism," which focuses on immediate relief of suffering, and "alchemical humanitarianism," which attempts to address "root causes" of suffering. Finally, he discusses the vexed relationship that humanitarianism has had with politics, on the one claiming that their warrant to operate in the midst of conflict zones is rooted in their apolitical commitment to the trio of impartiality, neutrality, and independence, and the increasing realization that the long-term alleviation of suffering cannot take place outside a framework that addresses the politics of omission or commission that generate the suffering. (These two views map closely but not perfectly onto the emergency v. alchemical distinction.)
Finally, although he does not explore the topic explicitly, the book is an essential read for those seeking to understand how development, human rights, and humanitarianism, which each began in drastically different institutional contexts and ethical imperatives, have increasingly merged since the end of the Cold War. In doing so, the concept of sovereignty, so sacrosanct in the immediate post-colonial period, as the newly independent states attempted to assert their liberation from the colonial yoke, began once again to be explicitly questioned or rejected, as Kofi Annan posited the explicitly anti-Westphalian concept of the "sovereignty of the people" being invokable from abroad to trump the "sovereignty of states" -- a project which reaches is culmination in the Kosovo intervention, which then in turn becomes a mechanism for the Bush regime to justify its invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003.
Written in 2010, it was perhaps slightly too soon to render a perfect judgment of the ironic effects of humanitarian and human rights discourse on the course of support for the Iraq War, but with six extra years of hindsight, it is now quite apparent that the coherence of the ethical foundations of human rights and humanitarianism (as well as development) have been largely destroyed by the variable reactions of the West to the divers killing fields of the 21st century Middle East. And yet, the reach of these three institutional archipelagos has arguably never been wider, and so it is clear that the last chapters have yet to be written.
December 29, 2025
brilliant! read for background on my thesis. in short, human rights ≠ humanitarianism. my focus in reading was tracing what barnett calls “humanitarian governance” — aid actors act as “quasi-sovereigns” practicing management rather than representation through a warped sense of paternalism (care vs. control) channeled through the post ww2 systems of power under the un. beyond this, i thought barnett quite fantastically termed (coined? perhaps reiterated) the concept of the “humanitarian marketplace” in which global humanitarian aid is an industry subjected to the same competitive pressures of any capitalist sector and thus capitulates to the same motives and players. not so surprising then when you hear — or don’t hear, rather — about the world food programme x palantir collaboration or unhcr x microsoft or any of the other bizarre technohumanitarian alliances these days buried beneath headlines.
Read
May 18, 2024 “Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made.” - Immanuel Kant
The contemporary humanitarian environment is characterized by a number of seemingly intractable challenges. Two books that highlight the adversity that humanitarians face are: A Bed for the Night: Humanitarianism in Crisis by David Rieff (2002) and Empire of Humanity: A History of Humanitarianism by Michael Barnett (2011). Both are works which provide insight into the complex world of humanitarianism. Rieff highlights numerous challenges confronting today’s humanitarians whereas Barnett provides an approachable, succinct history of modern humanitarianism; tracing its evolution over time. Rieff paints what could be considered a dark picture for the field as he depicts the numerous obstacles that humanitarians face. Barnett acknowledges the challenges addressed by Rieff but suggests that the greatest advances to humanitarianism are made following periods of adversity and self-reflection.
Among the difficulties facing humanitarians, Rieff and Barnett highlight: 1. the powerful influence of politics; 2. accountability and professionalization of humanitarians; and 3. the impact of paternalism. The following essay addresses what Rieff and Barnett say about these topics and provides the insights of others in the humanitarian field. Someone who only reads A Bed the Night would miss the historical perspectives gained through Empire of Humanity, and would be left with a sense of despair for modern humanitarianism. It would be similar to walking into the middle of a three-act play; not witnessing any character development and feeling that a satisfactory denouement is improbable. Together, both books are beneficial in understanding the arc of modern humanitarianism. Although today’s humanitarians face numerous challenges, it is through a cycle which Barnett highlights: failure, introspection, and (hopefully) improvement that the field advances.
Politics. An inescapable reality for humanitarians is the fact that politics plays an ever present role in their activities. Rieff and Barnett both draw attention to politics, its impact on humanitarianism, and the fact that over the last several decades, states have increased their funding for humanitarian activities. This has caused states to gain greater influence over relief activities and priorities. As a result, humanitarians have taken a more active role in politics and governments have taken a more active role in humanitarianism. Rieff argues that the closeness between relief agencies and the patron governments has come at a significant cost for humanitarians.
Funding is a powerful force driving the convergence of politics and humanitarianism. Barnett reminds the reader that state sponsorship has been present throughout the history of humanitarianism. However, following World War II governments increased humanitarian funding due to their belief that a strong relationship exists between security and foreign aid. In many instances, relief organizations receive funding via the UN system or directly from their national governments. This results in a relationship of dependence and humanitarian organizations have limited autonomy because they are essentially subcontractors of the UN and donor governments.
Due to such funding arrangements, national governments tend to show favoritism by selecting “their” NGOs to provide humanitarian services at “their” locations. Few humanitarian organizations attempt to distinguish themselves from their sponsor governments because of the degree to which politicization has harmed their impartiality. Furthermore, relief groups feel that their close relationship with donor governments is a powerful reason for them to censor their views on conflicts.
Rieff believes that humanitarian aid is often employed as a political tool to limit involvement in parts of the world where governments lack economic or strategic interests. Humanitarian efforts are seen by some politicians as a “containment through charity” substitute that is used instead of political action supported by military force. For instance, Western European governments were reluctant to absorb Bosnian refugees fleeing violence, so humanitarian action was used as a method to keep them in place. In this regard, the UNHCR helped achieve major donor countries’ priority of keeping Bosnians from fleeing across borders. Barnett agrees that in places like Bosnia, humanitarianism became an alibi for political inaction by the West. If humanitarian aid is considered to be effective during a given crisis, there is less political pressure to further intervene. A side effect of inaction in places like Bosnia and Rwanda has been shame for politicians and humanitarians alike.
Rieff and Barnett draw attention to the politicization of humanitarianism that is manifest through the increasing convergence of humanitarian and military activities. In recent decades, the two have become nearly indistinguishable. The blending of the two fields has resulted in a number of challenges for humanitarians. First, the safety of aid workers is put at risk because there is an increased chance that they could be mistaken as combatants. In previous decades, humanitarians could work with little fear of being attacked, but now find themselves as the favorite target in conflict zones.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan accelerated the convergence of humanitarian work and military operations. In these conflicts, US politicians saw humanitarian aid as simply part of a larger military-directed ‘hearts and minds’ strategy. Prior to the invasion of Afghanistan, Secretary of State Colin Powell said he considered NGOs to be, “a force multiplier for us, such an important part of our combat team.” In some instances, the military simply partnered with NGOs, whereas in other situations the military created “full-service” facilities that provided security, relief supplies, etc. Participation in the military-humanitarian system in Afghanistan resulted in attacks on UN and NGO facilities. The increasing integration of humanitarian and military efforts made it difficult for humanitarians to distance themselves from war efforts. Barnett says that throughout the history of humanitarianism violence has always played a role in protecting the weak and that it is likely to play a strong role in the future as well.
Accountability and professionalization. The lack of accountability and professionalism of humanitarians have been identified as twin issues that can exacerbate the negative impacts of assistance. There is typically an absence of accountability because aid workers are not often held to professional standards. Although the general trend over time has been in the direction towards accountability and professionalism, humanitarian aid organizations have a lot of room for improvement. However, there are a number of considerations as relief organizations seek to increase their accountability and professionalism.
Barnett illustrates that throughout the history of humanitarianism nearly all humanitarian groups began as amateurs and lacked organization. For example, the ICRC which is one of today’s most highly-respected organizations, was originally composed of a motley group of individuals who approached humanitarian work as a hobby. The ICRC lacked flexibility, oversight, central principles, and basic standards. In order to make progress and to stop repeating its mistakes, the ICRC had to professionalize and adopt standards of accountability. Many humanitarian agencies have made strides over recent decades to become more professionalized and accountable but in many instances have become less responsive to the needs of those they serve.
A lack of professional standards results in humanitarian organizations being less effective and adaptable. For example, Barnett explains how in the 1970s MSF realized that it needed to be more professional and bureaucratic in order to accomplish its mission. It had to reconsider sending amateurs to the field for a few weeks to provide what amounted to substandard care. The MSF staff found that, instead, it needed trained professionals who could provide expert care over several months, not weeks. The absence of professionalism prevented it from becoming “a perfect machine, a solid structure, equipped with means, our materials, and our emergency logic.”
A relief organization’s lack of professionalism can result in more than just bureaucratic inefficiencies; it can also cost lives. Following Rwanda, an investigation found that several NGOs “performed in an unprofessional and irresponsible manner that resulted not only in duplication of wasted resources but may have contributed to an unnecessary loss of life.” Many of the staff operating in Rwanda were less effective because they lacked training and an understanding of the environment. Following the genocidal actions in Rwanda, some lamented how they had just wanted to help and volunteered without being briefed on the country. Some felt that their volunteer work may have unwittingly facilitated the genocide.
The professionalization of humanitarian aid generally results in the centralization of relief efforts for a given organization. Centralization yields positive results such as streamlined processes and an economy of effort. However, such professionalization can inadvertently increase the distance between aid workers and aid recipients. The result is often a widening disconnect between the actual needs of the people and the assistance that they provide. Aid workers are, therefore, less accountable to those in need because they have a greater emphasis on accomplishing their assigned tasks and on reporting back to their headquarters and donors. To increase accountability to those that they serve, aid organizations should seek and incorporate feedback from those they serve.
Creating organizational standards, developing codes of conduct, and determining results means little if it is not accompanied by accountability. Throughout the history of humanitarianism, there had been little pressure for relief groups to be held accountable to donors or recipients. Accountability has improved in recent decades, but results have benefitted donors more than aid recipients. Relief organizations of all varieties must keep in mind to whom they are accountable while they are supporting victims. Those providing relief may feel as though they are primarily accountable to their organizations, the government for whom they are working, or perhaps their donors.
It is often unclear where the victims are on the list of priorities. Should aid workers be afforded discretion in decision making given that they are closest to the problem or should they defer to organizational priorities? The absence of accountability can result in humanitarian organizations engaging in paternalistic practices that end up serving the needs of the relief organization more than those being served. This will require an egalitarian approach that is more accountable to local needs rather than donor initiatives.
Paternalism. One description of paternalism is: “the interference with a person’s liberty of action justified by reasons referring exclusively to the welfare, good, happiness, needs, interests or values of the person whose liberty is being violated.” To one degree or another, paternalism has been a core element of humanitarianism throughout its history. Although humanitarian aid is often done with the noble intention of helping others, there is almost always an inherent power imbalance between aid giver and aid recipient. Furthermore, the greater the responsibility humanitarians feel for the care of others, the less likely they are to be concerned about consent and their power over others.
One reason for paternalism in humanitarian aid is the element of racism. Although aid workers would take umbrage at their actions being perceived as racist in any manner, Rieff believes that racism is tangentially a matter of concern. Some critics believe that racism plays a central, unavoidable role in relief efforts. This is not to say that humanitarians, themselves, are racist and have an overt bias against whom they serve. Moreover, there is a contrast between the environment from which aid workers come and the place in which aid is delivered. Africa, for example, is often perceived as “the other world” and is seen in stark contrast; a place that is less civilized and less human. It is this contrast that can imbue humanitarians with a sense of superiority that is characteristic of paternalism.
Barnett named his book ‘Empire of Humanity’ because he felt the history of humanitarianism reflects an emancipatory endeavor that uses power to provide relief to those around the world. He views paternalism as a recurring, central theme throughout the history of humanitarianism. If that is the case, should paternalism be considered as a positive characteristic of humanitarianism? Despite its negative connotations, paternalism represents both the best and the worst aspects of humanitarianism, according to Barnett. Throughout history, humanitarianism has engaged in paternalistic acts that are on one hand compassionate and charitable, but on the other hand are ethnocentric and racist.
The degree to which humanitarian organizations engage in paternalistic behaviors is reflected in the degree to which they involve local partners. Aid organizations that are more paternalistic are less likely to engage in activities that involve sharing power or influence with others, especially locals. This would perhaps require aid organizations to put the interests of local populations above those of the donors. More often than not, the power imbalance remains and the local actors are left on the periphery of decision making and influence. The reasons behind the dismissal of local input have varied from their belief that they possess greater knowledge, to ignoring the locals they believe to be defending the status quo, etc. In recent years, humanitarian agencies have taken some steps to include the views of locals. Efforts to involve locals are uneven across the humanitarian community but generally on the rise.
Paternalism among humanitarians and the resultant lack of willingness to seek local perspectives are driven by trends which influence their approach to the work. Two trends which increase the likelihood of paternalistic behavior are: the shift from response to prevention; and treating humanitarian work as a business. An emphasis on prevention, vice response, causes humanitarians to provide “deliverables” to a society which is seen as having fundamental flaws which require outside expertise to address. Furthermore, the implementation of business practices in humanitarian organizations increases paternalism by focusing on the satisfaction of donors. In such a system, input from aid recipients is seen as nonessential to receive continued programmatic funding.
Failure, introspection and (hopefully) improvement. Rieff and Barnett provide divergent views on humanitarianism with respect to their optimism for the enterprise. Rieff considers humanitarianism to be, by definition, an “emblem of failure, not success.” He points to increased poverty, environmental damage, and inequality as indications that humanitarian aid has been a failure. Rieff provides numerous case studies such as Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo, and Afghanistan which serve as humanitarian lowlights. It would be easy to find other examples of humanitarian failures like North Korea, for example, where aid has been used to enable a repressive regime.
Other experts in humanitarian aid, such as Barnett, are very much aware of the relief community’s shortcomings, but nevertheless have an optimistic outlook for the future. Although Rieff and Barnett both have a grasp of the challenges facing modern humanitarianism, Barnett provides the reader a greater sense of perspective by illustrating the historical evolution of humanitarianism. Barnett identifies three ages of humanitarianism: imperial humanitarianism (from late 18th century to World War II), neo-humanitarianism (from end of World War II to the close of the Cold War), and liberal humanitarianism (from end of the Cold War to the present). Many of the challenges and tensions that are experienced by today’s humanitarians have been present from the beginning and are considered to be intrinsic to humanitarianism.
Throughout the various ages of humanitarianism, aid providers have been faced with difficult challenges; some of which have been addressed above. It is true that the history of humanitarianism is replete with examples of humanitarians failing due to their own shortcomings or for reasons beyond their control. However, such setbacks have often turned into opportunities for renewal and growth. Barnett’s survey of the history of humanitarianism provides a pattern that often emerges: 1. failure, 2. introspection, and 3. (hopefully) improvement. Barnett states:
"Yet frequently it is a crisis of faith that has bent the path toward realizing progress in humanitarianism and humanitarianism as progress. Humanitarianism has made its greatest strides when humanitarians questioned the consequences of their actions, examined the complexity of their motives, fretted over the development of a machinery that might build a stronger wall between themselves and those in need, discovered ways in which those who come to emancipate also bear new mechanisms of domination, and began collecting evidence to understand what does and does not work."
Conclusion. A Bed for the Night and Empire of Humanity both shed light on the enormous difficulties facing today’s humanitarians and this essay briefly touched on a few of them, namely: 1. the powerful influence of politics; 2. accountability and professionalization of humanitarians; and 3. the impact of paternalism. When addressing issues such as these, it is important to have a sense of perspective and understand that many of these issues have been present since the inception of relief work. Together, both books are beneficial in understanding the arc of modern humanitarianism. Although today’s humanitarians face numerous challenges, it is through a cycle of failure, introspection, and (hopefully) improvement that the field advances.
The contemporary humanitarian environment is characterized by a number of seemingly intractable challenges. Two books that highlight the adversity that humanitarians face are: A Bed for the Night: Humanitarianism in Crisis by David Rieff (2002) and Empire of Humanity: A History of Humanitarianism by Michael Barnett (2011). Both are works which provide insight into the complex world of humanitarianism. Rieff highlights numerous challenges confronting today’s humanitarians whereas Barnett provides an approachable, succinct history of modern humanitarianism; tracing its evolution over time. Rieff paints what could be considered a dark picture for the field as he depicts the numerous obstacles that humanitarians face. Barnett acknowledges the challenges addressed by Rieff but suggests that the greatest advances to humanitarianism are made following periods of adversity and self-reflection.
Among the difficulties facing humanitarians, Rieff and Barnett highlight: 1. the powerful influence of politics; 2. accountability and professionalization of humanitarians; and 3. the impact of paternalism. The following essay addresses what Rieff and Barnett say about these topics and provides the insights of others in the humanitarian field. Someone who only reads A Bed the Night would miss the historical perspectives gained through Empire of Humanity, and would be left with a sense of despair for modern humanitarianism. It would be similar to walking into the middle of a three-act play; not witnessing any character development and feeling that a satisfactory denouement is improbable. Together, both books are beneficial in understanding the arc of modern humanitarianism. Although today’s humanitarians face numerous challenges, it is through a cycle which Barnett highlights: failure, introspection, and (hopefully) improvement that the field advances.
Politics. An inescapable reality for humanitarians is the fact that politics plays an ever present role in their activities. Rieff and Barnett both draw attention to politics, its impact on humanitarianism, and the fact that over the last several decades, states have increased their funding for humanitarian activities. This has caused states to gain greater influence over relief activities and priorities. As a result, humanitarians have taken a more active role in politics and governments have taken a more active role in humanitarianism. Rieff argues that the closeness between relief agencies and the patron governments has come at a significant cost for humanitarians.
Funding is a powerful force driving the convergence of politics and humanitarianism. Barnett reminds the reader that state sponsorship has been present throughout the history of humanitarianism. However, following World War II governments increased humanitarian funding due to their belief that a strong relationship exists between security and foreign aid. In many instances, relief organizations receive funding via the UN system or directly from their national governments. This results in a relationship of dependence and humanitarian organizations have limited autonomy because they are essentially subcontractors of the UN and donor governments.
Due to such funding arrangements, national governments tend to show favoritism by selecting “their” NGOs to provide humanitarian services at “their” locations. Few humanitarian organizations attempt to distinguish themselves from their sponsor governments because of the degree to which politicization has harmed their impartiality. Furthermore, relief groups feel that their close relationship with donor governments is a powerful reason for them to censor their views on conflicts.
Rieff believes that humanitarian aid is often employed as a political tool to limit involvement in parts of the world where governments lack economic or strategic interests. Humanitarian efforts are seen by some politicians as a “containment through charity” substitute that is used instead of political action supported by military force. For instance, Western European governments were reluctant to absorb Bosnian refugees fleeing violence, so humanitarian action was used as a method to keep them in place. In this regard, the UNHCR helped achieve major donor countries’ priority of keeping Bosnians from fleeing across borders. Barnett agrees that in places like Bosnia, humanitarianism became an alibi for political inaction by the West. If humanitarian aid is considered to be effective during a given crisis, there is less political pressure to further intervene. A side effect of inaction in places like Bosnia and Rwanda has been shame for politicians and humanitarians alike.
Rieff and Barnett draw attention to the politicization of humanitarianism that is manifest through the increasing convergence of humanitarian and military activities. In recent decades, the two have become nearly indistinguishable. The blending of the two fields has resulted in a number of challenges for humanitarians. First, the safety of aid workers is put at risk because there is an increased chance that they could be mistaken as combatants. In previous decades, humanitarians could work with little fear of being attacked, but now find themselves as the favorite target in conflict zones.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan accelerated the convergence of humanitarian work and military operations. In these conflicts, US politicians saw humanitarian aid as simply part of a larger military-directed ‘hearts and minds’ strategy. Prior to the invasion of Afghanistan, Secretary of State Colin Powell said he considered NGOs to be, “a force multiplier for us, such an important part of our combat team.” In some instances, the military simply partnered with NGOs, whereas in other situations the military created “full-service” facilities that provided security, relief supplies, etc. Participation in the military-humanitarian system in Afghanistan resulted in attacks on UN and NGO facilities. The increasing integration of humanitarian and military efforts made it difficult for humanitarians to distance themselves from war efforts. Barnett says that throughout the history of humanitarianism violence has always played a role in protecting the weak and that it is likely to play a strong role in the future as well.
Accountability and professionalization. The lack of accountability and professionalism of humanitarians have been identified as twin issues that can exacerbate the negative impacts of assistance. There is typically an absence of accountability because aid workers are not often held to professional standards. Although the general trend over time has been in the direction towards accountability and professionalism, humanitarian aid organizations have a lot of room for improvement. However, there are a number of considerations as relief organizations seek to increase their accountability and professionalism.
Barnett illustrates that throughout the history of humanitarianism nearly all humanitarian groups began as amateurs and lacked organization. For example, the ICRC which is one of today’s most highly-respected organizations, was originally composed of a motley group of individuals who approached humanitarian work as a hobby. The ICRC lacked flexibility, oversight, central principles, and basic standards. In order to make progress and to stop repeating its mistakes, the ICRC had to professionalize and adopt standards of accountability. Many humanitarian agencies have made strides over recent decades to become more professionalized and accountable but in many instances have become less responsive to the needs of those they serve.
A lack of professional standards results in humanitarian organizations being less effective and adaptable. For example, Barnett explains how in the 1970s MSF realized that it needed to be more professional and bureaucratic in order to accomplish its mission. It had to reconsider sending amateurs to the field for a few weeks to provide what amounted to substandard care. The MSF staff found that, instead, it needed trained professionals who could provide expert care over several months, not weeks. The absence of professionalism prevented it from becoming “a perfect machine, a solid structure, equipped with means, our materials, and our emergency logic.”
A relief organization’s lack of professionalism can result in more than just bureaucratic inefficiencies; it can also cost lives. Following Rwanda, an investigation found that several NGOs “performed in an unprofessional and irresponsible manner that resulted not only in duplication of wasted resources but may have contributed to an unnecessary loss of life.” Many of the staff operating in Rwanda were less effective because they lacked training and an understanding of the environment. Following the genocidal actions in Rwanda, some lamented how they had just wanted to help and volunteered without being briefed on the country. Some felt that their volunteer work may have unwittingly facilitated the genocide.
The professionalization of humanitarian aid generally results in the centralization of relief efforts for a given organization. Centralization yields positive results such as streamlined processes and an economy of effort. However, such professionalization can inadvertently increase the distance between aid workers and aid recipients. The result is often a widening disconnect between the actual needs of the people and the assistance that they provide. Aid workers are, therefore, less accountable to those in need because they have a greater emphasis on accomplishing their assigned tasks and on reporting back to their headquarters and donors. To increase accountability to those that they serve, aid organizations should seek and incorporate feedback from those they serve.
Creating organizational standards, developing codes of conduct, and determining results means little if it is not accompanied by accountability. Throughout the history of humanitarianism, there had been little pressure for relief groups to be held accountable to donors or recipients. Accountability has improved in recent decades, but results have benefitted donors more than aid recipients. Relief organizations of all varieties must keep in mind to whom they are accountable while they are supporting victims. Those providing relief may feel as though they are primarily accountable to their organizations, the government for whom they are working, or perhaps their donors.
It is often unclear where the victims are on the list of priorities. Should aid workers be afforded discretion in decision making given that they are closest to the problem or should they defer to organizational priorities? The absence of accountability can result in humanitarian organizations engaging in paternalistic practices that end up serving the needs of the relief organization more than those being served. This will require an egalitarian approach that is more accountable to local needs rather than donor initiatives.
Paternalism. One description of paternalism is: “the interference with a person’s liberty of action justified by reasons referring exclusively to the welfare, good, happiness, needs, interests or values of the person whose liberty is being violated.” To one degree or another, paternalism has been a core element of humanitarianism throughout its history. Although humanitarian aid is often done with the noble intention of helping others, there is almost always an inherent power imbalance between aid giver and aid recipient. Furthermore, the greater the responsibility humanitarians feel for the care of others, the less likely they are to be concerned about consent and their power over others.
One reason for paternalism in humanitarian aid is the element of racism. Although aid workers would take umbrage at their actions being perceived as racist in any manner, Rieff believes that racism is tangentially a matter of concern. Some critics believe that racism plays a central, unavoidable role in relief efforts. This is not to say that humanitarians, themselves, are racist and have an overt bias against whom they serve. Moreover, there is a contrast between the environment from which aid workers come and the place in which aid is delivered. Africa, for example, is often perceived as “the other world” and is seen in stark contrast; a place that is less civilized and less human. It is this contrast that can imbue humanitarians with a sense of superiority that is characteristic of paternalism.
Barnett named his book ‘Empire of Humanity’ because he felt the history of humanitarianism reflects an emancipatory endeavor that uses power to provide relief to those around the world. He views paternalism as a recurring, central theme throughout the history of humanitarianism. If that is the case, should paternalism be considered as a positive characteristic of humanitarianism? Despite its negative connotations, paternalism represents both the best and the worst aspects of humanitarianism, according to Barnett. Throughout history, humanitarianism has engaged in paternalistic acts that are on one hand compassionate and charitable, but on the other hand are ethnocentric and racist.
The degree to which humanitarian organizations engage in paternalistic behaviors is reflected in the degree to which they involve local partners. Aid organizations that are more paternalistic are less likely to engage in activities that involve sharing power or influence with others, especially locals. This would perhaps require aid organizations to put the interests of local populations above those of the donors. More often than not, the power imbalance remains and the local actors are left on the periphery of decision making and influence. The reasons behind the dismissal of local input have varied from their belief that they possess greater knowledge, to ignoring the locals they believe to be defending the status quo, etc. In recent years, humanitarian agencies have taken some steps to include the views of locals. Efforts to involve locals are uneven across the humanitarian community but generally on the rise.
Paternalism among humanitarians and the resultant lack of willingness to seek local perspectives are driven by trends which influence their approach to the work. Two trends which increase the likelihood of paternalistic behavior are: the shift from response to prevention; and treating humanitarian work as a business. An emphasis on prevention, vice response, causes humanitarians to provide “deliverables” to a society which is seen as having fundamental flaws which require outside expertise to address. Furthermore, the implementation of business practices in humanitarian organizations increases paternalism by focusing on the satisfaction of donors. In such a system, input from aid recipients is seen as nonessential to receive continued programmatic funding.
Failure, introspection and (hopefully) improvement. Rieff and Barnett provide divergent views on humanitarianism with respect to their optimism for the enterprise. Rieff considers humanitarianism to be, by definition, an “emblem of failure, not success.” He points to increased poverty, environmental damage, and inequality as indications that humanitarian aid has been a failure. Rieff provides numerous case studies such as Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo, and Afghanistan which serve as humanitarian lowlights. It would be easy to find other examples of humanitarian failures like North Korea, for example, where aid has been used to enable a repressive regime.
Other experts in humanitarian aid, such as Barnett, are very much aware of the relief community’s shortcomings, but nevertheless have an optimistic outlook for the future. Although Rieff and Barnett both have a grasp of the challenges facing modern humanitarianism, Barnett provides the reader a greater sense of perspective by illustrating the historical evolution of humanitarianism. Barnett identifies three ages of humanitarianism: imperial humanitarianism (from late 18th century to World War II), neo-humanitarianism (from end of World War II to the close of the Cold War), and liberal humanitarianism (from end of the Cold War to the present). Many of the challenges and tensions that are experienced by today’s humanitarians have been present from the beginning and are considered to be intrinsic to humanitarianism.
Throughout the various ages of humanitarianism, aid providers have been faced with difficult challenges; some of which have been addressed above. It is true that the history of humanitarianism is replete with examples of humanitarians failing due to their own shortcomings or for reasons beyond their control. However, such setbacks have often turned into opportunities for renewal and growth. Barnett’s survey of the history of humanitarianism provides a pattern that often emerges: 1. failure, 2. introspection, and 3. (hopefully) improvement. Barnett states:
"Yet frequently it is a crisis of faith that has bent the path toward realizing progress in humanitarianism and humanitarianism as progress. Humanitarianism has made its greatest strides when humanitarians questioned the consequences of their actions, examined the complexity of their motives, fretted over the development of a machinery that might build a stronger wall between themselves and those in need, discovered ways in which those who come to emancipate also bear new mechanisms of domination, and began collecting evidence to understand what does and does not work."
Conclusion. A Bed for the Night and Empire of Humanity both shed light on the enormous difficulties facing today’s humanitarians and this essay briefly touched on a few of them, namely: 1. the powerful influence of politics; 2. accountability and professionalization of humanitarians; and 3. the impact of paternalism. When addressing issues such as these, it is important to have a sense of perspective and understand that many of these issues have been present since the inception of relief work. Together, both books are beneficial in understanding the arc of modern humanitarianism. Although today’s humanitarians face numerous challenges, it is through a cycle of failure, introspection, and (hopefully) improvement that the field advances.
January 13, 2014
Very interesting book tracing the "evolution" of Humanitarianism over the last ~150 years. The author focuses on humanitarian organizations over three historical contexts. The book is divided into sections on each context, which roughly coincide to Imperial, Cold War, and post-Cold War. Barnett is in the main a political scientist, and he states that he is not trying to present a cultural history of human rights or humanity. He is focused on these organizations and their missions, methods, and the limitations imposed upon them by their own moral codes and the fear of interfering with the political status quo.
He divides humanitarianism into two impulses: emergency and alchemical. The former is what most people commonly associate with humanitarianism, namely the delivery of food, medicine, and shelter to suffering people the world over. The latter is the impulse to treat the causes of the suffering, following the maxim that "prevention is better than a cure." Alchemical humanitarianism has, at various times, taken on civilizational, developmentalist, and state-building guises. It also brings humanitarian groups very close to a politics that such groups, often claiming to be neutral, impartial, and apolitical, tend to eschew.
Barnett's book is strongest when discussing events since the mid-20th century. His discussion of events in Biafra, Ethiopia, Bosnia, and Rwanda are fascinating. We see how humanitarian groups struggle internally when they are faced with becoming pawns in larger political movements, or how some, such as Médecins Sans Frontières came to become political as they realized the limitations of the UN during the Cold War to cope with suffering resulting from civil strife.
One of the weaker aspects of the book is Barnett's attempt to explain the rise of humanitarianism in the West. The first section of the book offers historical descriptions of evangelicalism and abolitionism. Most of the examples are drawn from Britain, so I found it a considerable reach cultural innovations there became immediately applicable in other "Western" contexts. This part of the story is too big for Barnett to explain in less than fifty pages. Another weak aspect is Barnett's failure to discuss the increased rise of "aid cities:" permanent tent cities that do not fade away even after conflicts end. This is unfortunate, because the author is so well posed to illuminate them at the end of the book. Barnett leads us with the impression that when a conflict ends, aid agencies pack up, go home, and reflect on mistakes and successes. Increasingly, this is not the case, and the role of aid camps as the eventual goal of aggressors seeking ethnic or political cleansing is increasingly important.
Barnett ends by arguing that many humanitarian groups today lean strongly on their alchemical aspect. This can be negative is the groups are too technical and aloof to listen closely to the needs of their patient-clients. Ignoring the inputs and criticisms of those they are serving allow the groups to be paternalistic. Humanitarian groups would do best to improve their self-reflection and accountability.
He divides humanitarianism into two impulses: emergency and alchemical. The former is what most people commonly associate with humanitarianism, namely the delivery of food, medicine, and shelter to suffering people the world over. The latter is the impulse to treat the causes of the suffering, following the maxim that "prevention is better than a cure." Alchemical humanitarianism has, at various times, taken on civilizational, developmentalist, and state-building guises. It also brings humanitarian groups very close to a politics that such groups, often claiming to be neutral, impartial, and apolitical, tend to eschew.
Barnett's book is strongest when discussing events since the mid-20th century. His discussion of events in Biafra, Ethiopia, Bosnia, and Rwanda are fascinating. We see how humanitarian groups struggle internally when they are faced with becoming pawns in larger political movements, or how some, such as Médecins Sans Frontières came to become political as they realized the limitations of the UN during the Cold War to cope with suffering resulting from civil strife.
One of the weaker aspects of the book is Barnett's attempt to explain the rise of humanitarianism in the West. The first section of the book offers historical descriptions of evangelicalism and abolitionism. Most of the examples are drawn from Britain, so I found it a considerable reach cultural innovations there became immediately applicable in other "Western" contexts. This part of the story is too big for Barnett to explain in less than fifty pages. Another weak aspect is Barnett's failure to discuss the increased rise of "aid cities:" permanent tent cities that do not fade away even after conflicts end. This is unfortunate, because the author is so well posed to illuminate them at the end of the book. Barnett leads us with the impression that when a conflict ends, aid agencies pack up, go home, and reflect on mistakes and successes. Increasingly, this is not the case, and the role of aid camps as the eventual goal of aggressors seeking ethnic or political cleansing is increasingly important.
Barnett ends by arguing that many humanitarian groups today lean strongly on their alchemical aspect. This can be negative is the groups are too technical and aloof to listen closely to the needs of their patient-clients. Ignoring the inputs and criticisms of those they are serving allow the groups to be paternalistic. Humanitarian groups would do best to improve their self-reflection and accountability.
October 18, 2018
Very neat summary of 200 years of humanitarianism.
(not discussing the strategic shifts 19th century to end of Cold War, although a little interesting)
#1 After the disasters of the 1990s – Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo – the humanitarian community realized that it’s all politics; humanitarianism is always political, being apolitical is becoming part of someone else’s political agenda.
#2 This political awakening coincided with the neoliberal turn in donor capitals and new public management which translated into humanitarian governance– accountability, VfM, over-focus on quantifiable (number of beneficiaries served) and created a new creed of ‘emergency technocrats’ who are apolitical not by way of ICRC holy grail of IHL but by way of neoliberal technocracy leading us to technical excellence (spreadsheets, infographics, real-time data, timeliness, efficiency) but potential political disasters because we do not understand the politics and non-quantifiable (also related to dignity, solidarity etc. which is no longer part of the humanitarian focus since not measurable)
#3 This neoliberal shift in humanitarian governance also strengthened accountability to the donor, not the beneficiary. The discourse of externally engineered ‘participation’ and ‘voice’ and ‘empowerment’ in itself an expression of a new form of technocratic (not moral, as in the 19th and 20th century) paternalism.
#4 The 21st century alignment of foreign policy and ‘humanitarian wars’ ‘responsibility to protect’ (e.g., anti-terror, refugees) with humanitarianism (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Turkey, Syria) resembles the logic of empire I many ways (hence the title) – empire is the expression of power over people in other parts of the world according to the interest of the centre.
#5 it all comes back to capitalism. Knew it.
(not discussing the strategic shifts 19th century to end of Cold War, although a little interesting)
#1 After the disasters of the 1990s – Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo – the humanitarian community realized that it’s all politics; humanitarianism is always political, being apolitical is becoming part of someone else’s political agenda.
#2 This political awakening coincided with the neoliberal turn in donor capitals and new public management which translated into humanitarian governance– accountability, VfM, over-focus on quantifiable (number of beneficiaries served) and created a new creed of ‘emergency technocrats’ who are apolitical not by way of ICRC holy grail of IHL but by way of neoliberal technocracy leading us to technical excellence (spreadsheets, infographics, real-time data, timeliness, efficiency) but potential political disasters because we do not understand the politics and non-quantifiable (also related to dignity, solidarity etc. which is no longer part of the humanitarian focus since not measurable)
#3 This neoliberal shift in humanitarian governance also strengthened accountability to the donor, not the beneficiary. The discourse of externally engineered ‘participation’ and ‘voice’ and ‘empowerment’ in itself an expression of a new form of technocratic (not moral, as in the 19th and 20th century) paternalism.
#4 The 21st century alignment of foreign policy and ‘humanitarian wars’ ‘responsibility to protect’ (e.g., anti-terror, refugees) with humanitarianism (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Turkey, Syria) resembles the logic of empire I many ways (hence the title) – empire is the expression of power over people in other parts of the world according to the interest of the centre.
#5 it all comes back to capitalism. Knew it.
Read
January 13, 2019very informative history of humanitarianism. It has a neat model on the Ages of Humanitarianism, namely:
i) Imperial Humanitarianism (1800-1945), where the force of destruction was great powers' war and colonialism; the force of creation was commerce, and the force of compassion was civilization
ii)Neo-Humanitarianism(1945-1989), where the force of destruction was the Cold War and decolonization, the force of creation was development, and the force of compassion was sovereignty
iii)Liberal Humanitarianism(1989-present), where the force of destruction was liberal peace (???), the force of creation was globalization, and the force of compassion was human rights
However, although this book critiques humanitarianism for an enduring basis in paternalistic beliefs about aid, this book still thinks and portrays uncritically the aid workers as idealistic heroes, who are only cornered into hard or compromised decisions because of the lack of funding and power. The book accepts tangential critiques of humanitarianism and its methodologies, but not fundamental critiques of humanitarianism and whether it should even exist, and whether it perpetuates itself to provide jobs/roles/funding to aid workers at the expense of the supposed aid recipient.
i) Imperial Humanitarianism (1800-1945), where the force of destruction was great powers' war and colonialism; the force of creation was commerce, and the force of compassion was civilization
ii)Neo-Humanitarianism(1945-1989), where the force of destruction was the Cold War and decolonization, the force of creation was development, and the force of compassion was sovereignty
iii)Liberal Humanitarianism(1989-present), where the force of destruction was liberal peace (???), the force of creation was globalization, and the force of compassion was human rights
However, although this book critiques humanitarianism for an enduring basis in paternalistic beliefs about aid, this book still thinks and portrays uncritically the aid workers as idealistic heroes, who are only cornered into hard or compromised decisions because of the lack of funding and power. The book accepts tangential critiques of humanitarianism and its methodologies, but not fundamental critiques of humanitarianism and whether it should even exist, and whether it perpetuates itself to provide jobs/roles/funding to aid workers at the expense of the supposed aid recipient.
January 30, 2020
It clearly outlines its objectives and frameworks. Admirably, it also warns of its biases and potential weaknesses. It follows three broad categories to trace the history of humanitarianism. This makes his approach simple and very easy to follow. Again, the clarity of each chapter is truly commendable. I enjoyed the lessons. I was challenged by the author’s perspective. I got more than what I expected from this book- the summary of the perspectives on the philosophy and practice of humanitarianism. Plus, his approach was not only narrative, but also presentation of thought-provoking opinions and excerpts from the practitioners, academics, politicians, philosophers, religious leaders and high-level managers.
His summary and repetition of the basic outlines of the history hammers the lessons deeper into one’s memory. This is probably one of the most most definitive works on the history of humanitarianism. Enjoyable read!
His summary and repetition of the basic outlines of the history hammers the lessons deeper into one’s memory. This is probably one of the most most definitive works on the history of humanitarianism. Enjoyable read!
January 22, 2018
In this book, Barnett analyzes humanitarianism as a product of its environment and times, emerging as a aspect of global governance asserting a moral order that can be compared to empires of the past (hence the name). It provides an interesting history of the routes of humanitarianism, and its religious beginnings. It also looks at the the ways in which humanitarians have conflated their own aims with the aims of those suffering, and have sought to further organisational goals in the midst of crisis.
September 26, 2022
Nice overview of the development of humanitarianism. It's interesting to see how the post 1990 environment and the aid agencies' failures shaped the recent evolutions. Written in 2011, the book starts being a bit old and does not talk a lot about recent emergencies such as Afghanistan (mostly focuses on the 20th century)
November 28, 2019
I read this book as a mandatory reading for my master course in humanitarian action. It is a must in this field and it gives you an idea of the development of the humanitarian aid during the years. Highly suggested for humanitarians especially.
December 17, 2024
Marvelous magnificent book you cannot be working in the field or interesting in humanitarian studies without reading this gold mine! It tells you how our current UN and humanitarian agencies came to place how did they evolve over time what went well and what is not yet going well.
March 11, 2018
For a book with a title like that, it‘s surprising to find a naivete more appropriate for a 4th-grader.
September 19, 2021
Anyone working in missions, relief, humanitarian aid, etc. should read this! The history of humanitarianism from the mid-19th century to a post-9/11, globalized world…a must-read.
February 25, 2021
Barnett discusses the many tensions within humanitarianism as well as it’s colonialist context by splitting its history into three main eras. This book is informative and is structured well, but the end felt disorienting. Barnett claims that humanitarianism is not a empire but just has to exists within empires. However, it felt like most of the book supported that humanitarian was/is an empire because it adapted to survive and is inherently political. Even when Barnett tried to prove why humanitarianism isn’t inherently political, his arguments seems to actually prove the opposite. Despite some argumentative errors, Barnett does articulate that humanitarianism is complex and we cannot romanticize or demonize humanitarianism.
July 12, 2016
"Empire of Humanity" is a unique tracing of the history of humanitarianism and its differences and intersections with politics and human rights. This book can definitely get repetitive which is why it can be hard at times to maintain interest. However, he makes a lot of really important and interesting points about the pervasiveness of paternalism throughout the three Eras of humanitarianism. I would recommend this to anyone interested in humanitarianism/relief work or human rights advocacy, but even without a background in those topics, Barnett's writing style is accessible and interesting for all.
January 13, 2016
Perfect for students studying humanitarian
Detailed with a brilliant overview. I wouldn't say it deserves the entitlement 'narrative' but it certainly is a good starting point.
Detailed with a brilliant overview. I wouldn't say it deserves the entitlement 'narrative' but it certainly is a good starting point.
August 26, 2016
Excellent book on the history of humanitarianism and relevant theories. Highly recommend.
March 19, 2014
So confusing, I didn't even finish it. Stay away!
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews