Classical humanitarianism and resilience humanitarianism: making sense of two brands of humanitarian action

Abstract

Humanitarian aid has long been dominated by a classical, Dunantist paradigm that was based on the ethics of the humanitarian principles and centred on international humanitarian United Nations agencies and non-governmental organizations. While in previous decades alternative paradigms and humanitarianisms evolved, this classical paradigm remained the central narrative of humanitarianism. In recent years, however, this paradigm has been paralleled by a resilience paradigm that is focused on local people and institutions as the first responders to crises. Whereas classical humanitarianism is rooted in the notion of exceptionalism, resilience humanitarianism starts from the idea of crisis as the new normality. This paper discusses the two paradigms and the incongruent images they evoke about crises, local institutions and the recipients of aid. The article puts forward the case for studying the ways in which these contrasting aid paradigms shape practices, dealing with the importance of discourse, the social life of policy, the multiplicity of interests, the power relations and the crucial importance of understanding the lifeworld and agency of aid workers and crisis-affected communities. The article demonstrates how the stories that humanitarians tell about themselves are based on highly selective views of reality and do not include the role they themselves play in the reordering and representation of realities in humanitarian crises.

Humanitarian governance and resilience building: Ethiopia in comparative perspective

“…Humanitarian aid has long been dominated by a classical Dunantist paradigm based on humanitarian ethics. However, in recent years, this paradigm has been paralleled by ‘resilience humanitarianism’ (Ilcan and Rygiel, 2015; Hilhorst, 2018), which links relief to development and focuses on local people and institutions as the first responders to crisis. Resilience humanitarianism first appeared in the domain of disaster risk reduction (DRR) and increasingly underpins refugee care and aid in countries transitioning from conflict to peace.…”

Review article: Towards a context-driven research: a state-of-the-art review of resilience research on climate change

“…Anthropogenic climate change comes with a political-administrative crisis, which manifests itself in the form of a legitimacy crisis, authority crisis (including the crisis of scientific authority), crisis of democracy, a crisis of human rights, a crisis of modernity (Swyngedouw, 2011;Blühdorn, 2013;Fischer, 2017;Ossewaarde, 2018;Stegemann & Ossewaarde, 2018;Dryzek & Pickering, 2019). Crisis has been widely constructed as the new normal (Hilhorst, 2018). In an increasingly toxic political environment -marked by climate change denial, anti-immigration policies, and nationalist protectionism -adaptive and transformative resilience and transformational adaptation may be expressed and contested in manifold ways.…”

“…practices, such 'resilience humanitarianism' based on the idea of crisis as a new normality (Hilhorst 2018). These policy discourses and practices have ignited new resilience research, new outlets (such as the interdisciplinary journal Resilience (established in 2013)), and the establishment of resilience research programs in universities around the world.…”

Health-Related Aspects of Post-conflict Reconstruction

“…In this regard, two key humanitarian paradigms can highlight inconsistencies in the perception of the role of external and local actors (Hilhorst 2018). The classical humanitarian paradigm (particularly the Dunanist tradition and the notion of exceptionalism) centers on the discontinuities, the disruptions, and the needs for outside assistance through principled aid provided by international humanitarian agencies.…”