Charity, Sustainable Development, And Problems Of Dependence In Central Uganda
In her thought-provoking monograph, Having People, Having Heart: Charity, Sustainable Development, and Problems of Dependence in Central Uganda, China Scherz, confronts the relationship between sustainable development and charity, and how they relate to Kiganda ethics of interdependence.
Through her fieldwork with Hope Child, an NGO focused on orphans and caregivers, and Mercy House, a Catholic charity serving orphans, the elderly and the disabled, Scherz discusses how these assemblages are shaped by Kiganda’s ethics of patronage and omutima omuyambi (heart for helping others). In ethnographically framing her argument, Scherz showcases Hope Child and its transition to sustainable development. This model aims to end poverty through learned self-reliance and community ownership and is “hailed internationally as an example of best practice. ” The approach, however, is rejected by Hope Child’s beneficiaries who are disappointed with the shift from material goods. Their disappointment is due to the Kiganda ethics of dependence and Hope Child’s failure to recognize the patron-client relationship they have with their beneficiaries whose immediate needs are not being met. In contrast, the sisters of Mercy House continue to follow their mission of providing material services to those who cannot care for themselves, despite abandonment by many donors. Led by their charism and the Kiganda ethics of patronage and mutima, the sisters work toward the “ultimate end, ” the love of God. Scherz concludes her study by suggesting that development practitioners should be open to “reconsidering old and new” models in certain situations saying, “they should not be rejected out of hand in places where interdependence and hierarchy carry a positive, or at least an ambivalent, moral valence”.
While Scherz research focused on Central Uganda, she suggests the findings are not unique to the Buganda region. When reflecting on her book, it’s easy to find links to themes beyond gifts and moralities of exchange. Scherz addresses the intersectionality of personhood, dependence, and human worth, as well as ideas surrounding marginalization and exclusion in society. The theme of interdependence is central to understanding Scherz’s argument. Much like the Bolivian tin miners in June Nash’s studies who participated in “cholo culture” and “the recognition of Pachamama”, the people of Buganda achieve personhood through their tradition of “wealth in people, ” reciprocal patron-client relationships and the building of networks. As anthropologist James Ferguson states, “The freedom that existed in such a social world … came not from independence, but from a plurality of opportunities for dependence”. It’s in misunderstanding or ignoring these dependencies and hierarchies that many NGO’s have erred. A core belief of development practitioners is that “the object of development work is transformation, not charity, and that recipients of aid should get productive skills and the opportunity to work, not handouts and dependency”.
The belief that dependency is bad and that workforce development is the way toward freedom creates power dynamics where the NGO knows what’s best, while simultaneously determining a human’s worth based on their ability to produce. The introduction of models such as sustainable development deviates from indigenous culture and disrupts societal structure. The sustainable development assemblage displayed by Hope Child is “tied to principles of cost-effectiveness and demands that organizations monitor and evaluate their programs”. This model devalues cultural context and highlights many prevalent problems seen in development. Scherz’s argument that sustainable development has led to the discontent of the beneficiaries resembles the findings of Lamia Karim who shared the experiences of poor Bangladeshi women who experience structural violence at the hands of microfinance NGO’s. In the name of economic empowerment, both Hope Child and these microfinance institutions chose to support more affluent community members, whom they view as better investments, to bolster reports and adhere to “ethics of audit”. Both examples disregard cultural norms due to their own self-interest and heighten hierarchical discontents within communities. Looking deeper into Buganda’s structure, it is easy to draw comparisons to what João Biehl calls a “zone of social abandonment”. While aesthetic links can be made between Mercy House and Vita, a Brazilian asylum, I would suggest rather that Mercy House is an oasis of life, while Buganda as a whole is becoming a “zone of social abandonment”.
A hub for many NGO’s working “to change cultures, economies, and lives” using western techniques in an attempt to modernize and liberate the people, Buganda’s most able-bodied have opportunities to build wealth while societies poorest are systematically left behind. In contrast, the ethical assemblage of Mercy House’s charity model creates a home for the community’s most vulnerable that honors their history and culture. While not void of resident frustrations, there is no doubt that within Mercy House, the individuals are not alone, they care for each other as “both givers and receivers of charity” working toward a common goal of “securing future blessings from God”.
Scherz’s monograph brings to light the importance of ethics and context in development work. While her approach to the ethical assemblages in Buganda is thoughtful and persuasive, I believe she presents charity as an alternative to sustainable development without offering an answer as to what could be the right approach forward, as I don’t believe the Catholic charity model is the right method. I wonder what the implications of this book and Scherz’s research will have on the development community and theories regarding implementation and question whether we will see a shift in models and best practices toward more inclusivity and cultural awareness in the future.
