Some illusions on acceptance

Political, ideological or religious radicalism represents a serious problem for humanitarian organizations relying on ‘acceptance’ strategies. This article challenges the dominant discourse on acceptance that tends to propose old recipes for new problems.

For the last thirty years, humanitarian actors have progressively established acceptance as the corner stone of their field strategies. It is widely accepted that aid should not, nor cannot, be imposed, and organisations must integrate due considerations of local culture, political sensitivity and conflict dynamics into their operational presence and activities. Much effort and thought have been dedicated to improving this concept, by now elevated to the status of dogma.

The notion of acceptance has also become a fundamental element of security strategies aimed at preventing hostile acts. However, in a number of contexts, counting on acceptance for security grossly under-estimates its limitations. There are (terrorist) acts that explicitly and violently reject the basic notion of humanitarian action. This is a reality in which tragic events are not security ‘accidents’ but are deliberate actions of rejection and hostility. The issue is not an incapacity to develop the right acceptance narrative. The issue is that in the politico-ideological environment in which such acts take place, the fundamental notion of humanitarian action is unambiguously dismissed and that thus humanitarian principles and acceptance have no meaning. In the absence of acceptance, operational presence must look for alternatives or be abandoned. Or: casualties become an integral and acceptable part of the humanitarian endeavour.

We take this opportunity to warmly thank our editors Larissa Fast (University of Manchester) and Léa Moutard (GISF) for their support and suggestions.