In defence of 'Voluntourism'

'Voluntourism'

'Voluntourism' has very negative connotations. It generally means somebody, usually young and inexperienced, that travels abroad to volunteer for a short period of time. It evokes the image of somebody for whom volunteering abroad is simply a narcissistic adventure: an opportunity to change their profile picture more than change the world. The criticisms of voluntourism fall into three categories.

Criticisms of 'Voluntourism'

Barbie saving the world

Firstly, it perpetuates the 'white saviour complex'. Photographs from volunteers are mostly rich white people hugging clearly impoverished black children. The images seem to say 'look at what a great person I am saving these helpless children'. Barbie Saviour provides some important satire that does a good job illustrating this argument.

The second criticism is economic: travelling so far to play with some children is an incredibly inefficient use of money if you actually want to help these people. Send them money instead and do far more good in the process. The volunteering work undertaken is inefficient, focused on the volunteers rather than helping local people, and is ultimately very ineffective. This article summarises the argument of ineffective volunteering.

The third criticism is that volunteering is not just ineffective but actively harmful to those it intends to help. 'Orphanages' have been investigated by UNICEF among other organisations and the findings have shown that up to 90% of children in orphanages are not orphans. These orphanages exist for voluntourists, often leaving the children in these sham orphanages susceptible to abuse and unneccessary family breakdowns.

Stepping outside of an idealistic paradigm

All three of these criticisms make very important points that need to be addressed. However, my main criticism of those arguments against 'voluntourism' is that they come from an idealistic point of view that neglects the practical needs of poor communities.

Ghana has potential for tourism

Firstly they neglect the 'tourism' half of voluntourism and the immense benefit that can come from it. Ghana's tourism industry gains immensely from volunteers in a country that would otherwise struggle to attract tourists. The benefits of a constant influx of foreign capital for local traders, local transport and local markets should not be overlooked. Even if the volunteering aspect is ineffective, this is a huge benefit offered to the economy.

Furthermore, the stereotype of a short-term volunteer as an overprivileged narcissist on their 'gap-yah' is frankly unfair and untrue. It does not stand up to research on the motivations of short-term volunteers. Also, in my experience, the overwhelming majority of volunteers genuinely want to make a difference: if they only wanted a good time, there are plenty of other places they could go with more comfortable surroundings, far less effort and far less cost. The passion and commitment to help others that many volunteers possess, even if it is misguided, should be harnessed effectively not disaparged and scorned at. It can be an extremely powerful resource if used correctly.

The most misguided criticism of voluntourism is the idealistic assertion assertion that people are better off staying at home and just donating their money instead. This article flatly suggests that most volunteers should just stay at home and not bother. However, this ignores the reality that most people just won't donate money that has no immediate benefit to them. Yes, in an ideal world, all volunteers would just donate that money and save the journey. I don't doubt that it would be a more effective use of money. However, it takes a quick look around to realise that we don't live in an ideal world and people simply don't like to share. 

The reality is that this money would probably end up on holidays, iPhones and new shoes and not large anonymous donations to effective charities. It is better to use this money for some positive impact than none at all. Added to that, the physical connection often leads to donations from past volunteers and their families.. Volunteering also encourages a long-term interest and commitment to development. There are so many indirect economic benefits beyond the actual work undertaken by a volunteer that even if a project is ineffective, it is still worthwhile to the local community for this person to spend their money in a country they would otherwise not have contributed anything at all. 

Bad regulation rather than bad volunteering

The potential for voluntourism to do active harm is by far the most important criticism. If volunteers are actively doing harm to a local community then the points previously mentioned become redundant. Orphanages in general are the biggest problem with voluntourism. More than any other volunteering, they perpetuate the 'white saviour complex' (what better way to feel like a hero than saving orphans?!). More worryingly, they create a constant cycle of abandonment from short-term volunteers that can cause psychological problems for vulnerable children. They also attract unscrupulous organisations that create 'sham' orphanages: essentially rupturing families in order to cash in on volunteers. 

However, this simply highlights the need for better regulation on volunteer opportunities. It does not mean short-term volunteering is an inherent problem. Volunteer organisations should have more stringent guidelines on what projects volunteers undertake. They should focus more on utilising the skills of volunteers to create sustainable change and not promote playing and taking selfies with chldren in orphanages. More culpability should be put on organisations to educate volunteers on how their time would be best spent, the importance of cultural sensitivty and to make them aware they are not there to treat children as a tourist attraction. 

Conclusion

Too many criticisms of 'voluntourism' are often hand-wavingly disparaging of naive volunteers that might be misguided in their desire to make a difference. Such scathing condesension does not help anyone and simply serves to give the critic a sense of self-righteousness. Those volunteering abroad have the potential to offer great benefits to impoverished communities - even if this is mostly as a tourist, it should not be neglected. The self-conglaturatory selfies on Facebook make me cringe as much as anyone but that desire to do good should be harnessed not hindered and it can be a powerful positive influence. It is up to organisations to direct international volunteers' energy in a positive way so their contribution is a genuine asset in reducing poverty and not just a new profile picture.