Why NGOs Must Die and the Problem With Sustainability Today
Do-Goodism and Good-Intentionism are further ruining the economies and societies of the developing world.
“[…] because resources (including human ones) are always limited, nothing can be said to be sustainable indefinitely. Entrepreneurial ventures of any sort must evolve in order to take advantage of current and new resources more efficiently. This is ultimately akin to the natural sustainability of biological systems. And like in nature, individuals within a complex evolutionary process must do something very important in order for future others to ultimately succeed: They must die.”
The following story’s details are semi-fictional, but it’s one whose variants are repeated in many places and many times by citizens of the “First World”:
At the beginning of a certain developing nation’s tourism push in the early 2000's, an artist with the best of intentions arrived with his partner and their backpacker’s bags to a medium-sized town near an impressive volcano. They both fell in love with the Spanish colonial architecture, the relative low cost of living, safety, peace-and-quite, and the great potential they saw for artistic inspiration in their surroundings. They also saw the sometimes-abject poverty, and became acquainted with the difficult living and economic conditions of many of the nationals there and in the rest of the country. They heard about the injustices, the difficulty of finding well-paying jobs, and other challenges.
The couple talked about it for a while, and decided to move to this country, but — because they were good people, with humanist, left-leaning liberal values— they also wanted to do something good for the people. Without wanting to make money by exploiting the people even further, they also decided to found a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO).
It was a great idea: start a donation-funded “artist’s colony”, where young artists and others would come to learn to paint, draw, create locally-inspired art, and receive a portion of the profits from the sale of the products of their artistic work, all at no financial cost to the locals. And it was working great. The NGO sold many thousands of dollars of all sorts of the artists’ work at very, very cheap prices. The protagonist of our story — our artist — also found much success selling his art at much higher prices as he touted the great value of his work in helping young artists in the developing world. Much of the proceeds from his very expensive paintings would go, of course, right back into the NGO’s very important task of helping the people.
The artist and the organization garnered praise, donations, and admiration from the public, donors, and even governments. And the money poured in. The artist and his dream were met with awards and their work was coined “sustainable”.
Yet, there is a reason why the saying goes, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
The Good Intentions of Those who [want to] do Good
The art world is a complicated place, but it’s not much different than the other abodes of good ol’ Capitalism. You can replace the above story’s characters or markets with any combination, and it’s a story many of us have heard before: First-World travelers fall in love with Developing Nation, see the problems, want to help, decide to be “expats” there, found a good-will organization, do well for themselves, and of course, also for the people of the country.
But behind these cookie-cutter stories lies an often-overlooked reality: many times, these tales of success in the name of humanity don’t actually improve on the underlying issues in developing countries much. In fact, these well-intended efforts may be making problems worse.
There are some problematic issues regarding the mere existence of organizations such as many [private] NGOs, and reasons why they are, ultimately, unsustainable; here are a few:
They are not immune to corruption
Most NGOs exist within legal and governmental frameworks that are oftentimes sources of inefficiency, corruption, and oppression in developing countries. In some places, their presence in a country is solely at the discretion of a particular governmental institution, party, or even the whim of a single official. Because they depend on a problematic system for their right to be present, NGOs can sometimes participate directly in and perpetuate the power structures and cultures of corruption and impunity in the developing world.
They create dependence on foreign money, ideas, and power
In a similar example to that of our story, the real-life consequences for the local population were not so rosy. Young artists in the town have become dependent on the influence of foreign NGO middle-men — organizations that often sell their work at extremely cheap prices that in turn garners them relatively low, albeit steady wages. The argument in defense is that since they are making much more money for their work than they were before, the results are obviously positive. However, even by the legal standards of that country, these artists may be receiving less than the minimum wage for the hours they spend on their work because they are not actual employees. Artists have found it difficult to enter the art market on their own or through local, national organizations or collectives; likewise, the market is so flooded with cheap but good-quality art offered for sale through these NGOs, that many independent young artists are forced out of the market because the cost of creating a painting on their own outweighs the economic reward. They would much rather receive free materials and make a bit of money with the NGO, than embark on innovative projects on their own. And the cycle repeats.
They create a culture of brand awareness over human value
Another example is that of a brand that touts its innovative use of recycled goods in a particular developing country, the material being sourced directly from an enormous, dangerous, and unregulated garbage dumpsite in the country’s capital. The NGO teaches workers to craft trash-based products — such as purses, hats, and other fashion accessories — and workers in turn receive payment for their production. However, the same financial ceilings (e.g. lack of sufficient capital, social connections, etc.) limit those workers from applying their skills creatively for themselves, as they don’t usually receive a sufficient wage that leads to their own entrepreneurial ventures. In the rare case this does happen, nevertheless, locals looking to create opportunities for themselves meet the additional challenge of competing against the NGO’s established brand, who has warned its public of “imitations” that don’t have their particular do-gooder bent. Currently, this organization has a virtual cultural and market monopoly even on similar artisanship. Although the organization provides opportunities for housing and education for their workers or materials suppliers, these are also considered “charitable gifts” from the generous largess of the NGO, leading to further dependency. Regardless, every act of charitable goodness only serves to further benefit national and international awareness of its brand.
In the long-run, Sustainability is merely a buzz word
Many NGOs and other organizations that tout “social awareness ” or “social responsibility” claim sustainability in and of their practices and products as their goal. However, the mere reduction of sustainability to a business model (whether “for profit” or “not-for-profit”) is problematic. As with any complex system, every location and market has many unique variables, and it’s impossible to take into account each one in any business model; ultimately, an NGO is just another kind of business.
However, because resources (including human ones) are always limited, nothing can be said to be sustainable indefinitely. Entrepreneurial ventures of any sort must evolve in order to take advantage of current and new resources more efficiently. This is ultimately akin to the natural sustainability of biological systems. And like in nature, individuals within a complex evolutionary process must do something very important in order for future others to ultimately succeed: They must die.
It’s important not to get ahead of ourselves. This is not to say that all NGOs and similar organizations (that means you, too, Social Enterprises) should be lead to the guillotine and disappear from the face of the earth. That would be extinction, not death. Rather, like the death of an individual creature in nature, this death should be a “programmed” process that allows future generations to flourish and, in turn, encourage evolution. In cell biology, there is a process known as apoptosis. Apoptosis — or normal, “programmed”, controlled cell death — is a natural part of an organism’s growth and development. Cells whose apoptosis is inhibited grow, divide, or expand uncontrollably, become cancerous, and lead to disease and infection. Here we see that the transformation of death is essential for health and life, for the good of the organism in general.
The Apoptosis of Good-Will Organizations and Enterprises
Likewise, it must be so with organizations whose drive is the desire for the good of humanity and/or the planet, the “Greater Good”. However, this does not have to be some traumatic event of sudden death and destruction. Death is, essentially, a transformation (the Law of Conservation of Energy means that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, after all). All the energy, ideas, products, and experiences of an individual who dies are therefore transformed into other things so that their offspring will benefit in the long-run. Currently, having a finite end or expiration date is not something most good-will organizations and social enterprises plan when starting up. I argue that they should.
A kind of Metamorphosis
Recently I was introduced to the work of Simone Weil, specifically, her books L’Enracinement (The Need for Roots) and La Pesanteur et la Grâce (Gravity and Grace). In these, she argues that humanity — as individuals and societies — has been uprooted, living in a condition of disconnectedness from our natural environment, the past, and lacking in genuine communities. She also brings the concept of “decreation” into light. Though it is difficult to separate the word from its mystical meaning, one can find an analogy for it in nature, in the life of the humble caterpillar.
This little animal is born from a tiny egg, living to gorge itself until it grows into a massive version of the shape in which it started life. Sometimes furry or smooth, sometimes camouflaged in its surroundings or of spectacular coloration, and always worm-like, the caterpillar could seem to go on growing and growing just as it always has. However, it does not. The caterpillar stops its gorging and creates a chrysalis. Once inside, the caterpillar undergoes the astonishing process of metamorphosis, in which the apoptosis — controlled death — of all its organs and reconfiguration of its matter — inside and out — transforms it into a being quite different from its former self: the marvelous butterfly.
In nature, metamorphosis allows for reduced competition between caterpillars (the young of the species) who feed on leaves and other vegetation, and butterflies (the adults) who feed on nectar and pollen. In a very literal way, much of the caterpillar must literally die — become decreated — in order for it to proceed onto the next stage or form of its existence, opening up resources and space for younger and future caterpillars amongst the leafy shrubs.
Decreation, decolonization, and human-created systems
Of course, we humans and our collectives are not little caterpillars (who are directed into this natural process by a gene named broad, with little choice but to obey). Rather, as anothersimplepilgrim writes while defining Weil’s decreation: as humans, we must instead “cultivate within ourselves the capacity to refuse self-expansion.”
In our nature, too, there is a need to expand beyond ourselves, beyond borders, and even beyond time: our exploits, our ideas, our cultures, languages, names, legacies, creations, products, and so on. And in most things that we create, this quality is present, including in the most well-meaning, best-intentioned movement or activity.
That leads me back to NGOs (including CBOs, TSOs, NPOs, VOs, GOs, SMOs, etc.) and other Social Enterprises. These too can be potential tools for colonialist expansion, regardless of their sustainable goals or good-will intent. One thing colonialism (or “neocolonialism”) creates in developing nations is socioeconomic dependency on the ideas and the economic and political power structures of more powerful nations. Even if the intent of an enterprise is to avoid exploiting workers in a poorer country, an undying, infinitely expansive core business model leaves other, deeper challenges unchanged. These practices and goals may in turn hinder the opportunity people in these nations can create for themselves, with the expectation that, when they do find a way, it will only look like more of the same.
To change, transform, and — most especially — die, have never been Capitalism’s favorite things to do. In fact, despite embracing buzz words and ideas like “transformative leadership”, “social change/awareness/responsibility”, or “disruption”, our current capitalist culture seems in a perpetual state of cancerous growth and expansion, doing everything in its power to remain in its gorging state, in spite of any negative consequences for humanity and the Earth. It is open to anything but transformation, change, or even disruption away from this state. This may lead to the conclusion that Capitalism has no intention of going through an apoptosis — or even metamorphosis — any time soon.
However, Capitalism isn’t really a thing. Like all concepts humans create, it is nothing without our choices, our deliberate actions; Capitalism exists in the way it has in the past and today because the structures, models, businesses, organizations, collectives, decisions, purchases, consumption, etc., that we collectively create — every single day — allow it to exist.
Not the Answer, merely, a Response
Putting an expiration date on good-will (or any other business) ventures is not how Capitalism will go extinct. It is perhaps merely a way to get a handle on its growth, a way to “program small deaths” within it that will push it to become an entirely different-looking creature. With these deliberate apoptoses or metamorphoses, we may cultivate a Capitalism that may well become something better, perhaps something else entirely; something that is capable of refusing self-expansion, and actually does. It is a radically humble way to think about the future, our culture, and our own nature: Like our own selves, the things that we create must also become decreated, so that others may flourish, so that humanity — as a species — can survive and, ultimately, evolve.
