Ideological Colonization Threatens Pillar of Global Bioethics
Image by Andrew Caballero-Reynolds.
The imposition of a Western mindset on growth and capacity building in developing countries threatens the integrity of global bioethics. This field emerged in response to issues that originate in one area but affect many regions or that disproportionately affect some areas but require a global response, like pandemics and vanishing biodiversity.Consequently, a critical task of global bioethics is to evaluate how priorities set in one part of the world shape many other geographic areas through the social, environmental, and political aspects of globalization.
Although equitable global development requires respect for local societies and their worldviews, the aid work of many nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) does not reflect the principles of solidarity, subsidiarity, and the common good. This disregard for local culture is clear evidence of ideological colonization, which has been condemned by the recent Magisterium as contrary to the Catholic vision of integral human development. Writing in Crux, Inés San Martín describes ideological colonization as “a form of oppression of developing societies by affluent ones, especially the West, though imposing an alien worldview or set of values on poorer societies, often by making adoption of those values a condition of humanitarian or development aid.”
Fr. Shenan Boquet, the president of Human Life International, has witnessed this trend firsthand during his mission work in Africa. Across the continent, but very noticeably in Uganda and Kenya, aid from Western governments and NGOs, such as USAID (US Agency for International Development) and the UNFPA (UN Population Fund), is conditional. According to Boquet, to receive money for wells, malaria nets, electrical infrastructure, and farming equipment, local communities must agree to receive and educate people on contraceptives. Although this strategy of family planning is an accepted part of economic and social development in Western nations, it conflicts with local cultural mindsets, which place a much greater emphasis on children and family life. “It doesn’t have to be this way,” Boquet said. “Years ago, they [NGOs] … were only focusing on the real needs. But there’s been a radical shift in mindset to utilitarianism in looking at the difficulties of other nations and saying, ‘You’re so ignorant and so poor; let us help you.’”
A conspicuous example of this cultural insensitively is that rural communities exchange key aspects of their way of life for benefits they rarely see. Although medical clinics distribute contraceptives and schools incorporate sex education classes in these remote communities, Boquet rarely sees the farming equipment, new roads, or reliable electricity the people were promised in return. Moreover, when aid does arrive, it often comes with rigid prerequisites—an individual won’t receive a malaria net without attending a class on contraception, or a village won’t receive a well unless local leaders endorse the NGO’s family planning programs. Boquet summed up the effects of this approach, saying, “[It] doesn’t change the infrastructure, other than make larger poor families into smaller poor families.”
To be fair, he acknowledged that large NGOs do engage in local capacity building and that governments and large foundations provide considerable resources to meet material needs. Nevertheless, he is convinced that an alternative, grassroots approach—which he has seen employed primarily by religious organizations—better respects local partners, despite having fewer material resources. These smaller organizations, he said, “try to understand the local leaders and situation,” and the goal always is to empower individuals and the community through a model of solidarity and subsidiarity that is consistent with how people are used to doing things. The key distinguisher is in how these small organizations communicate their values. “When the Church is active in a community, it’s by public witness, not by proselytization,” Boquet said. “You’re not going to be served … [only] if you do this or that. Secular groups tend to retract aid if you don’t adhere to these other parts of their ideology.”
Dr. Cynthia Jones-Nosacek, a retired physician who works extensively with medical missions in Uganda, shared similar observations. “A lot of times, Western people come in with their own idea of what the ideal is and don’t consider the cultural ramification of what that change would mean.” She gave the example of an American member of an aid committee who insisted that Ugandan men should learn to cook. This seemingly innocuous division of labor was counterproductive to the local relationship dynamics. “The priest at the parish [in Africa] said that cooking is one of the few things that women have some control or power in that relationship,” Jones-Nosacek related. “And if you give it to the man then she loses that control. [It is] one less thing that she can do to give to the relationship.”
She believes this conflict between local and foreign mindsets can be largely resolved by balancing three elements of foreign aid: community, autonomy, and Western values. “In the West, autonomy [is] above everything. In the Third World, trying to hold onto traditions is more important to the community and elders—while still recognizing some autonomy.”
First, local communities need to be able to set their own goals and decide how to communicate their values. So, aid organizations need to listen to what people have to say. However, representatives from large NGOs focus on political leaders and rarely engage with community members or elders. “In Acholi, they say, ‘Munus pe woto,’ which means, ‘White people don’t walk.’ They come in driving their nice SUVs, talk to the leaders, and leave without fully understanding the situation or considering the consequences of their actions,” Jones-Nosacek said. “On the other hand, I am a ‘munu ma woto,’ a white person who walks with them.”
Second, individuals must be empowered to exercise genuine autonomy. According to Jones-Nosacek, in Uganda many men believe they are entitled to sex whenever they want it. Rather than avoiding the root issue by merely providing injectable contraceptives to women, NGOs should help promote equality in these relationships.
Third, there still is a legitimate place for introducing a Western approach to problem-solving: Jones-Nosacek gave the example of a clinic that requested funding to build or repair the same bathroom on three separate occasion. “One person said that everything the people in Mexico asked for we should give them. … At some point you need to put a quality bathroom in there. We need to get away from the whatever they want is good and must be supported.”
Ultimately, balance is achieved through a collaborative approach that emphasizes listening and accommodates the way things are done in the local community. Listening occurs when local groups set the priorities and aid organizations provide funding when needed. Jones-Nosacek’s committee in the United States has a sister committee in Uganda. The Americans determine how much money they can provide, the Ugandans develop a list of local initiatives that are priorities for them, and the Americans then choose one or two to fund.
Rev. Shenan Boquet and Dr. Cynthia Jones-Nosaeck also gave a presentation on this topic on November 17, 2022. The full recording in available to members of The National Catholic Bioethics Center. To receive free content from the event, like Q&As, follow the NCBC on Facebook and subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Philip Cerroni is an associate ethicist at The National Catholic Bioethics Center.