Why not Child Sponsorship?

“The question of, you know, is it better than nothing? I’ve seen before mostly around really exploitative labor conditions, and especially sweatshops. So, it’s actually a question that gets addressed in the development literature and in development economics of whether—even for those in favor, the admittedly exploitative, and very harmful work conditions in sweatshops— are they worth it? Is that a good thing? Is it better than nothing? And the answer in the mainstream literature is almost always Yes. Not just, it’s better than nothing, they have a job, let’s hope that the conditions improve, let’s work towards improving conditions. But also—and I think you probably have this parallel with the child sponsorship literature or arguments as well—it’s [justified as] an important step on a ladder towards development. And so, there’s this concept… it used to be the takeoff with a metaphor of an airplane, and it’s evolved through the work of Jeffrey Sachs to a ladder, but you have to either take off in your airplane, or you have to get the first rung on the ladder, and then development, the idea that you can move towards an end goal of an industrialized western style society, picks up its own momentum, and moves forward. And so that’s been used to justify the damage that’s required for that airplane to take off, or for that first step to be taken on to the ladder, because we recognize the immediate harm, but we understand the process that will follow and it’s one that’s of benefit, if not to those individuals, to future generations in their country. And so, sweatshops get justified as pulling people out of the conditions that were holding them in poverty, and moving individuals and families and society as a whole forward along this path that is seen as inevitable. I think, you know, I’m not… like I said, I’m not too familiar with the child sponsorship literature, but I think there’s something there that’s similar as well, you know, we’re pulling… we’re pulling kids out of the abject poverty that they’re doomed to sort of remain captive within, unless they receive the funds that will allow them to study and then get a job and improve their family’s life conditions, and if that’s broad enough across society, improve the conditions for the whole country, right? And so again, it’s this thinking that something that is at worst, harmful, and at best really not the most effective or appropriate way to engage in development, is worthwhile because it’s taking a step towards something that those proponents would want to see. But that ignores why those individuals are facing the choices and life conditions that they’re facing in the first place. And it takes us out of the relationship— us being Canadians or people in the north— it takes us out of the power relationship of creating and perpetuating the conditions that create the poverty that people in the Global South live within, and instead places it just on—within the relationship— just on the end of an altruistic donor. And, I mean, it’s only coming together in my mind as I’m talking through the answer, but it reconfigures our position within that relationship in a way that prevents us from taking action that would make a positive impact on the conditions that create that poverty, and instead place us as the only people who can help take the first step out of poverty.”

“And our economic activity here at home and abroad as well— Canadian companies and what the Canadian government supports— operates within an economic system that was built through one of the most unjust and exploitative models that the world has ever experienced. It was in place for about 500 years, and I’m talking about European colonialism. And so, I mean… it’s really important that we’ve reached a place in Canada where the national discussion has really recognized the impacts and historical importance, and ongoing, not just consequences, but ongoing actions associated with colonialism here in Canada. But it’s just as important to recognize that the inequalities between countries in the world, were established through those same colonial processes, and were never properly reformed, either. And so, the Canadian government that benefits from a system of injustice here within Canada based on ongoing settler colonialism, Canada as a whole, and regular Canadian citizens, also benefit from a similar ongoing process of colonialism around the world; that we’re the beneficiaries of a political economic order that was set up in order to drain the globe, to drain the colonies of wealth for the benefit of colonizers. I mean, that was the open intention of that political system at the time. But formal independence didn’t change those relationships and power imbalance between former colonizers and former colonized countries. And so, the majority of the world’s population is still living in conditions of poverty and economic exploitation that were established through colonialism and continue to limit their possibilities as individuals, and as countries as well. So, we’re absolutely complicit in the historically created and actively ongoing processes of injustice and power imbalance within the world.”

“I’ve never trusted, let’s say, I’ve never been particularly comfortable with actually sponsoring a child in another country and thinking that like, that’s my child, or I’m responsible, or… it’s, I don’t think I could articulate very well, why I felt uncomfortable. Now I can because I’ve actually been looking at it… So I think it’s coming, we’re not asking the right questions, and we’re sort of not doing the right thing, we should be putting much more pressure let’s say, on working with the government and local institutions, to strengthen systems and policies, rather than this child sponsorship… World Vision’s coming out on television, I saw last night with ‘Chosen’ their new program, which is you the sponsor, in England, or Canada or Australia, you now, the child, the very empowered child, black or brown child is choosing you and you are so excited. Now, that’s empowering? That’s giving a child of choice? Is that the choice, to pick who they going to get money from? And that’s how we live, like the white gaze coming all the way, you can pick your own sponsor. I think it’s very ugly. Actually, I really disagree with that, I think it’s immoral. And then you’ve got the organizations that really are [reliant on] child sponsorship and very Christian or religious faith based, like Compassion. And that’s where, you know, you look at their website, they’ve got thousands of children telling their story of poverty, in little captions with choose me, click here, and I can’t see the differences, as I said in my article, between that and swiping across a picture like a dating app mentality. So, I do think it’s commodification of children, even though at times there is money, that good programs may be, you know, rolled out. I’m not saying that all the programs are bad, and they have maybe helped communities. But I think our thinking about commodifying children like this is just wrong, simply wrong. And actually, against the values that all these INGOs— and I’ll consider myself an INGO in this— that we hold, then we act, I think, against our values.”

“I don’t think that anybody working in a child sponsorship program thinks that they’re selling the idea of development to people in the south so that the rollout of global capitalism can be enforced. But the actual effect fits within that very well. People in the north need to believe that they as individuals, their society as a whole, their government, are participating in something altruistic that is delivering a long-term good to people in the south, regardless of what the actual impact is. So, programs like child sponsorship, make the donor feel good. But making individual donors in the north feel good about their participation in development is about more than satisfying their own guilt. It’s an important cog in this bigger machine that enables the continued operation of global capitalism along these lines of power imbalance and inequality that were inherited from colonialism. Because those of us who have the power to actually change the direction of development instead believe that giving and that working towards progress is in the best interest of people in the south, and then within that, that we’re doing our part, we’re participating as best as we can with our minimal resources. And so, it’s not a question of hiding the truth or duping people, but these are pieces that fit into a whole and align really neatly. So, I don’t think that… you know, child sponsorship is not solving any of the actual existing problems of development that need addressing, that are being addressed in many different ways, but it is an important aspect of development because it’s one of the many pieces that allows [global capitalism] to operate.”