Exoticism. It’s a word that few people are familiar with. Exoticism in the Oxford English Dictionary is listed as a tendency to adopt what is exotic or foreign. It’s a pretty vague definition so I’ll make an attempt to give it more depth. Someone who “exoticizes” a culture finds a particular interest in that culture sometimes to the point of imitating it. Exoticism can also be seen in personal relationships where people prefer to associate with others of a different culture because they find something striking in the other’s background.
I’m not here to criticize people who “exoticize.” I am here, however, to talk about how exoticism affects social projects and activism. I am talking about people who prefer to go to foreign countries, by that I mean developing nations, to participate in social activism or aide organizations simply because they are intrigued by the peoples. I experienced the negative effects of this first hand in my involvement in the recent Nicaraguan workers situation and the following workers’ rights campaign.
I found it interesting that when the Nicaraguan workers disappeared there was an outpouring of concern on the part of many Washington University students. I was overjoyed that so many people (many of these including Spanish students, Anthropology students and even pre-med students) were willing to take part in our efforts to bring the workers back to the U.S. However, when we realized that there were other injustices on this campus in regards to other service employees, we decided to form the Student-Worker Alliance (SWA). Our purpose is to look into these injustices and work on making the University a real community by ensuring the first-class treatment of the forgotten part of our community: the workers.
This is where I became even more disillusioned than I already am with students at this school. As it became clearer that SWA was expanding its mission beyond just the Nicaraguan workers, its membership decreased drastically. The only possible way I can interpret this is that once the group decided to help local workers, people lost interest. This is a phenomenon that has continuously baffled me. I always wonder why a lot of Americans who are concerned about human rights seem more interested fighting them abroad.
As I look around me, I have come to the conclusion that those who live in comfort in America generalize their good fortune to the nation in general. Maybe that is why people choose to do humanitarian projects overseas. I can understand the general desire to help people who are less fortunate than we are; however, it seems that people want to forget or are unwilling to recognize that there are people who are underprivileged in the United States.
The United States Census Bureau reports that the official poverty rate in 2002 was 12.1 percent, up from 11.7 percent in 2001. Also in 2002, people below the official poverty thresholds numbered 34.6 million and the number of children in poverty increased to 12.1 million in 2002, up from 11.7 million in 2001. Similarly, the number of elderly in poverty increased from 3.4 million in 2001 to 3.6 million in 2002. These numbers can only be worse now with the economy as bad as it is. Surprised? I know I was. Don’t these people need help as well?
I am not saying that we shouldn’t go out and help other people in developing nations nor am I, by any means, demonizing the work of people who do humanitarian work in developing nations. I am simply asking that we consider what our intentions are. If there’s exoticism involved then there’s a problem. People who care about human rights and inequality should be willing to fight for anyone who is experiencing injustice, even local people. It is not fair to choose to fight for a people simply because you find their culture more interesting.