White Savior Complex:
A Case Study
Karen M. Wangensten
Assumptions/Methods/Data
Results/Discussion
Introduction
df
�
This case study examines the Central Asia Institute (CAI) and some ways white saviorism may be embedded in their practices. I attempt to show that while non-profit organizations may have good intentions, their work sometimes neglects the issue with and unintended consequences of “saving” people, ultimately working against their supposed goal of creating positive and effective social change.
White Saviorism deals with the phenomenon that white people are “rescuing” people of color and “solving” their problems without any consideration of their historical and political context. Fittingly in this context, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak also described it as “white men saving brown women from brown men” (Abu-Lughod 784).
CAI’s mission, ”To promote education and livelihood skills, especially for girls and women, in the remote regions of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Tajikistan,” is carried out by their nine board members, six staff members, and their in-country partners (centralasiainstitute.org). One of their founders, Greg Mortenson, is the author of the disgraced Three Cups of Tea, a book which leaves no doubt that Mortenson has a white savior complex. Therefore, I decided to analyze the available information on CAI’s website and other literature to explore whether his organization has the same.
By looking at the ways
they depict the work that they do,
the people they work with, and
who their audience is, I ask the
question, What are some ways the
white savior complex is imbedded
in their practices? For this
discussion, I examine two ways:
charity and the centered voices.
In discussing charity and centered voices, I have attempted to show a couple of ways that CAI functions as a white savior and thus that their work is flawed. I have yet to reach a conclusion, but I believe there are more reasons than one for why that is. Could it be that CAI is not familiar with what authentic, meaningful, and effective social change looks like? If so, how could we go about teaching them and similar organizations, movements, and individuals about it?
At the very least, I highly suspect that the need to survive in a capitalist system forces an organization to function in a certain way, including CAI. For instance, I wonder to what extent having both founders and all six staff members be white, as well as directing their work toward a white audience, could be a conscious decision to create relatability and encourage donations from other wealthy white saviors? A conclusion remains to be drawn.
Charity
The ideal organization would engage in solidarity, not charity. If CAI was participating in solidarity, they would measure their work’s value up against what the people of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Tajikistan wished for themselves. Accordingly, solidarity work aims to function as a resource for people, simply present and supportive of ensuring that their needs are met. While solidarity is seen as horizontal, charity is about top to bottom. It is declaring that “We know better and have more,” and therefore offering help (Freire 45). Essentially, it is asserting power.
CAI demonstrates a charity approach to their work. Among a number of their video clips, for example, there is one titled “Building the Future of Education”; it shows photos of schools in poor condition, a number of Tajikis with gloomy and serious expressions, complemented by phrases like “Communities would be so grateful for your help” and a quote a student in Tajikistan saying, “It will be the best thing that will happen to us,” and toward the end, smiling white people, presumably donors (centrailasiainstitute.org). The video’s audience is people with money and those looking for “a journey” to be taken on. The end result of charity work like this is maintenance of the existing imbalanced power relationship.
�Centered Voices
CAI makes it
apparent that there
is a difference
between “us” and
“them,” that is,
between the donors and hard-working people of CAI and the “poor” and “pitiful” people of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Tajikistan. For the most part, “us” are the only ones we hear from. In their magazine Journey of Hope, we hear from various writers; while information about them cannot be accessed on CAI’s website, they predominantly appear to be female American writers (based on their names, photos, and description of their involvement with CAI). The stories we are told -- even when told by Mahreen, a “poor girl” supported by CAI -- are focused on showing development, and the hero of each story is CAI (Journey of Hope). Ultimately, we need to ask, who is all this work really for?
References
Abu-Lughod, Lila. “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others.” American Anthropologist, Vol. 104, No.3, 2002, pp. 783-790.
Central Asia Insitute. centralasiainstitute.org. Accessed 20 Apr. 2020.
Central Asia Institute. Journey of Hope, vol. XIII, 2019, pp. 1-28. https://view.joomag.com/journey-of-hope-2019-joh- 2019/0094395001573588970?short.
Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, Continuum, 2005.
Conclusions/Future work