(This concludes a 5-part series which responds to the responses that I received following my Foreign Policy post about Nicholas Kristof’s D.I.Y. aid concept. For more background, also see Part 1: How complicated can things really be?)
5. Future of the issue: More debate, and more nuance
Several people commented on the FP site calling for more debate and more nuance. Their comments were appreciated. The lack of public discussion around development issues leads to a lack of general understanding. This is what allows, and even encourages, Kristof to publish such a simple narrative. I know he’s a smart guy. I know he gets the complexity of these issues. He presents a simplified version because he sees his audience (the general American public) as needing a simple version.
Kristof has admitted as much, at least with regard to the charge that he uses a “Whites in Shining Armor” narrative. A few months back, he addressed this issue in a video answer to readers’ questions (transcript and analysis available at NYT Picker). On Friday, he addressed the issue again on his blog:
In response to the earlier video comment, Laura Seay wrote:
I concur. Kristof has a huge platform at his disposal. He does these issues a disservice by not using it to raise the level of discourse.
Further reading: I had originally planned to use this post to recap what others have written as part of this debate. Someone beat me to it. At the risk of turning this blog into a Saundra Schimmelpfennig fan site, just go here for links to a dozen or so other posts about DIY aid:
And with that, dear readers, I promise not to write about Nicholas Kristof or DIY aid for a while. I haven’t got much else to say! Check out the full series:
- Part 1: How complicated can things really be?
- Part 2: Questions of elitism. (Or: Just what is a “professional”?)
- Part 3: Improving the development industry. (Or: Don’t the professionals screw things up too?)
- Part 4: So what is the role for people who don’t fit your definition of “professional”?
- Part 5: Future of the issue: More debate, and more nuance