Volunteer Tourism Response

The two most important questions about volunteer tourism seem to be whether people have the appropriate intentions and whether volunteer tourism is effective.  It is difficult to make a case for volunteer tourism when all three pieces critique at least one aspect of the practice, but I am going to try. 

Stupart operates under the assumption that no matter how you look at it, these organizations are unhelpful, or at least only trivially helpful.  I disagree.  I think there are ways to structurally improve programs to improve their usefulness.  Stupart tackles the first question, and provides an important critique of these selfish motivations.  Stupart claims that regardless of the individual’s motive, volunteer tourism displays ignorance about the ways they can help.  Unless it is truly counterproductive, I would say it is a leap to consider this an unethical practice simply because there are more effective and efficient ways to help.  I think it is possible to work with these programs to develop relationships and help individuals’ quality of life.  It is true that some of these programs need to be reworked, but I think it is not necessary to abandon them completely.

Stupart criticizes many aspects of volunteer tourism, one of them being the volunteer’s self-interest.  At the beginning of the semester, we discussed how much intent matters.  If someone does the right thing for the wrong reasons, is it still unethical?  Are we inherently self-motivated individuals? Is it possible to be selfless?  In this case, I do not find it unethical to attempt to improve people’s quality of life in a way that also serves some self-interest of the helper either.  If an individual would prefer to travel to another country to help, it may be slightly selfish, but these programs should be structured in a way that makes this desire feasible.  The sad reality is that people want credit for helping others, and less people will want to make a website than travel to a country they have never seen. 

Stupart seems to find it unethical to be uninformed about how to best serve the needs of individuals in countries that people are volunteering in.  To defend this argument, he explains that orphanages create their own agenda by presenting orphans with parents.  This does not reflect on the individual as much as it does on the structure of the organization.  It is important to be informed about the credibility of the volunteer organization they are working with. On the one hand, I agree with Stupart that individuals should be informed about these organizations so that they are enacting change.  On the other hand, I do not think it is implausible to have successful volunteer tourists as Stupart suggests.  Zakaria mentions the “white savior complex,” and the ethnography challenges the structure of the programs by pointing out that we are assuming an authoritative position, and perpetuate the idea that these individuals are “marginalized and disempowered.”

Stupart argues that the countries develop a dependency on volunteer tourists.  This is another thing that can be fixed.  Establishing programs that do not require that dependency will still help people abroad.  I think it is unfair to say that there are sufficient resources and volunteers abroad who will complete the tasks volunteer tourists complete.  That is an oversimplification.  These programs should be made in a way that doesn't simply throw money at people, but rather work towards improving quality of life or education.

I think that the ethnographic study highlights the complexity of volunteer tourism instead of aggressively contesting the plausibility of volunteer tourism.  In the ethnographic study it seems that positive interaction between people of different cultures is promoted through volunteer tourism.  The positive interaction and trust described in the study is valuable.  I think that it is important to refine these volunteer programs to focus on improving education and providing homes to those in need.