Paternalism

Why Understanding Paternalism Matters

Although humanitarian aid systems include many instances in which assistance is offered freely with no expectations, this does not remove the deeper issues built into these systems. The structures created to help people can still create unequal roles — where those who provide support are seen as the ones who know and decide, and refugees are positioned as dependent. Even a simple gift or caring gesture can become linked to forms of control, especially when it strengthens existing power differences or limits refugees’ involvement in decisions about their own lives. In that sense, humanitarian aid can reinforce unequal and patriarchal relationships and where refugees are viewed as people who need rescuing and helpers are assumed to know what is best (52), turning everyday solidarity work into control — where assistance intentionally or unintentionally repeats the hierarchies it aims to reduce.

What does Paternalism mean?

Interference with liberty of action

The Latin root “pater” refers to the father — implying the care of a parent-like figure over a child-like figure(53). Paternalism is commonly defined as the interference with a person’s liberty of action justified by reasons referring exclusively to the welfare, good, happiness, needs, interests, or values of the person being coerced (54). This perspective further refines focus from interference with someone’s interests to interference in their proper sphere of autonomy and judgment, emphasizing how paternalism limits a person’s ability to make decisions for themselves(55).

Restriction on individual autonomy

Paternalism occurs when an act of support limits a person’s freedom of choice (56, 57). It is understood as a restriction on individual autonomy, based on the belief that an outside actor — often the state or an institution — knows what is best and therefore has the authority to override personal decisions (58).

Historical context

Although formal colonial rule has ended, the structures and effects of Western imperialism continue to shape global relationships. Western actors have expanded various forms of “care” directed toward non-Western populations, where practices are often intertwined with power and structural imbalances. Paternalism continues to be present today — even if it takes more subtle forms or hides under the mask of help and support.

Paternalism in the refugee context

In the refugee context, refugee organizations may not only aim to address people’s needs but also decide what those needs are and which solutions are appropriate. Decision-making power often shifts away from refugees themselves — leading to approaches that reflect the assumptions of decision-makers rather than the lived experiences of those affected, which can result in harmful outcomes. (59)

Consequences of Paternalism

Discussions of paternalism almost always refer to first-order values such as autonomy, power, freedom, dignity, consent, and liberty. Because these values are central to human agency and rights, paternalistic practices tend to produce significant and often harmful consequences.

▶Violations of Autonomy and Dignity

Paternalism violates a person’s autonomy and dignity and can be experienced by local communities as insulting, humiliating, or disempowering. It diminishes people’s sense of agency and their capacity to make decisions (60). International development experts frequently dismiss or override local knowledge. Western-based health organizations conduct programs in the Global South that would not be permissible under patient rights frameworks in Western countries. Local workers and community-led organizations face chronic underfunding — only 0.2 percent of global relief funding went to local organizations in 2015 (61). This leaves many communities dependent on international actors who continue to dominate the aid landscape.

▶Reinforcement of Dependency

Paternalism creates dependency cycles that restrict empowerment and self-determination. Recipients are pushed into passive roles that reinforce existing inequalities and disproportionately benefit aid providers (62). So called “Development aid” is frequently structured to produce long-term dependence — through unequal trade agreements, resource extraction, and conditional aid. Baker (63) illustrates this clearly: individuals in wealthy, predominantly white nations enjoy far greater autonomy, while Black populations in poorer countries are portrayed as helpless victims in need of rescue. Such narratives justify unequal power relations and obscure the agency of communities in the Global South. The resulting dependency cycle places industrialized countries in positions of control and leaves developing countries in subordinate roles, severely limiting opportunities for self-empowerment and genuine autonomy (64).

▶Reproduction of Superiority and Deepening Global Hierarchies

Asylum policies shaped by civilizational or cultural differences reinforce narratives of Western moral superiority — positioning the Global North as the benevolent rescuer and the Global South as the helpless victim (65) thereby sustaining unequal and paternalistic relationships. As a result, existing inequalities are reaffirmed, while the voices and identities of displaced people are marginalized or silenced (66).
Questions of consent illustrate this power imbalance clearly: in conditions of extreme dependence, suggestions made by powerful actors can feel like commands, and recipients may remain silent rather than risk losing assistance. Humanitarian actors remain protected by privileges and options unavailable to the populations they aim to assist — their vulnerability is never equivalent to that of the communities they serve (67).Humanitarian crises also reveal hierarchies of whose lives are protected and whose lives are expendable. Fassin describes the decision by Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) staff to remain in Iraq during the 2003 bombing campaign as partly motivated by a desire to disrupt the stark inequality between those whose lives are treated as sacred and those who may be sacrificed. Their decision to stay symbolized an attempt to share risk with Iraqis. Yet the limits of this moral stance became clear when three team members were abducted, prompting MSF to withdraw. No matter the intentions of humanitarian actors, they remain protected by privileges and options unavailable to the populations they aim to assist. Their vulnerability is therefore never equivalent to that of the communities they serve (68).

▶Emotional and Social Consequences

When people are consistently treated as incapable of making their own decisions, they may begin to internalize this judgment and doubt their abilities. This can lead to feelings of powerlessness, frustration, and resentment — further undermining the relationship between helpers and those receiving assistance (69). When support organizations impose their own values on local populations, this frequently generates mistrust and reluctance to engage with aid programs, weakening cooperation and reducing the effectiveness of support initiatives (70).

What does this mean for your work with people on the move?

Volunteers cannot erase humanitarian hierarchies, but they can create interactions grounded in respect, autonomy, and dignity — and act in support of the resistance movement with affected communities. If you want to learn more about what actions you can take to minimise paternalistic behaviour, navigate to the chapter on “Allyship and Support rooted in Solidarity”.

✏️

Activity

Write your thoughts on the paternalistic statements below.

Curriculum

Paternalism

Search

Login with your site account

Register a new account