Voluntourism: More tourist than volunteer
Straits Times July 28, 2007
JUST back from vacation, a story in Tuesday's paper caught my eye. A growing number of people from Singapore, it seems, have been signing up to spend their hard-earned holiday time doing tough work for charities in difficult places. If you haven't heard, this new niche in vacation travel is called 'voluntourism'.
Yet, press-ganged during my holiday into 'house projects' digging dirt, hauling rocks and stacking logs for my father-in-law in Vermont's rural America, the idea of paying for the privilege of working for no pay stumps me. Yes, yes, it's all for a good cause, of course. Still, I can't help feeling suspicious.
The pitch is simple. Instead of two weeks sipping wine somewhere comfortable, somewhere scenic, put your money to better use and volunteer your labour to a Third World charity or an aid agency. The idea oozes with virtue. And when something sounds so good, I get bothered. For one thing, I have to wonder what real value volunteer tourists offer their hosts.
The cynic in me suspects that these short-timers take home more from their slumming in the Third World than leave behind for the underprivileged they are supposed to help. There are the photographs with those unfortunate enough to have been born in the wrong place. There is the cleansing of developed-world middle-class guilt. There might even be the opportunity to use the experience on a college application or job resume.
On the other side, I imagine, the charities and aid agencies must play host to a revolving number of people who never stay long enough to make any difference - and who might even complicate matters because of their lack of experience.
If you're new to rural-anywhere, village life in Cambodia or Malawi or Mongolia is going to take a take a lot of getting used to. So the charities have to put up with volunteers being less than a hundred per cent at first. Then, they have to get the volunteers up to speed for the work they've signed up for.
But hey, two weeks go by pretty fast. In no time at all, then, the volunteers are saying their goodbyes - we'll be thinking of you and we'll always remember this.
So as soon as they've arrived to do good for the wretched of the earth, the tourists are just as quickly out of there. The poor remain, on the other hand, stuck in their patch of dirt. Symmetry is restored; nothing changes. Except for the volunteers who can count on dining out on their experience.
I'm no handyman, but I've spent enough time with my father-in-law to know a thing or two about hammers and saws. Enough anyway to know that it's a pretty steep curve learning all the bits you need to build a house, school, toilet, or whatever it is voluntourists do. So I have to wonder how much use they are, especially people more likely to call in the locksmith for the broken door than to try to fix it themselves.
Okay, maybe volunteers do less challenging jobs, like painting. Hey, anyone can paint, right? But then, why do you need someone from Singapore or New York to, say, go paint a clinic in Nicaragua?
What's particularly galling about voluntourism is the vanity that people from developed countries naturally have something to teach the poor. There's a smug superiority, lurking in the back, wrapped up in the notion that anyone from a rich nation willing to stump up the cash can teach the underprivileged of the Third World how to live their lives.
Certainly, you can't fault the charities for being complicit in volunteer tourism. The exposure they get can help with raising funds in the future. Perhaps they're willing to put up with the interruption in their work and the hassle for this. But if you care enough for a cause or charity, why not just give your money outright instead of making the charity put up with you?
I reckon charities and aid agencies could make better use of the cash price of a volunteering holiday than the labour they get out of a short-timer. They have many needs that have to be paid for. And money is always in short supply.
Volunteer tourists here can pay up to $3,000 for a two-week trip, says the newspaper report I read. Now, imagine how many permanent local workers an aid agency in Cambodia can hire with that. Then, think about the money ponied up by five or 10 voluntourists.
Of course, many charities and aid agencies could badly use even short-time help from people with real skills - like doctors, nurses and mechanics - who come to work on crucial projects. But these volunteers aren't recruited at a travel agency.
Just as useful are the volunteers who are there for the long haul. And that's to mention nothing of workers who have made a professional commitment towards aiding those who need help. Again, none of them signed up at a travel agency.
Neither would I fault people who go abroad after working at home with the same charities or aid agencies. In this case, the trips are part of a long-standing commitment. They frame, put into context, the charitable work these volunteers do at home, allowing them to better understand conditions. They learn how much money they might need to raise at home for projects, what materials they might collect and ship over.
The thing is to be useful. So if you want to help, there are prudent and effective ways to go about it. But importantly, don't get in the way.
On Wednesday, police in Afghanistan found the bullet-riddled body of one of the 23 South Koreans taken hostage last week. The Koreans were kidnapped by the Taleban outside Kabul while on a 10-day trip to teach English and help in a hospital, unwittingly adding to the security challenges and difficulties faced by the Afghan government. The hostage takers have demanded the release of a number of their fighters in exchange for the Koreans' freedom.
Most short-timers are unlikely to end up in a situation even remotely like this. But it's a grim reminder to leave aid work in difficult places to the professionals and the experienced.
Send them your money if you care. Don't get in their way.
tionkwa@sph.com.sg
GIVING OR RECEIVING?
The cynic in me suspects that these short-timers take home more from their slumming in the Third World than leave behind for the under-privileged they are supposed to help.
