ABSTRACT
Humanitarian aid has long been dominated by a classical, Dunantist paradigm that was based on the ethics of the humanitarian principles and centred on international humanitarian United Nations agencies and non-governmental organizations. In recent years this paradigm has been paralleled by a resilience paradigm that is focused on local people and institutions as the first responders to crises. Whereas classical humanitarianism is rooted in the notion of exceptionalism, resilience humanitarianism starts from the idea of crisis as the new normality. This chapter discusses the two paradigms and the incongruent images they evoke about crises, local institutions and the recipients of aid. In doing so, it presents an analytical perspective for the study of aid paradigms and praxis. This perspective views aid as an arena where different actors encounter, negotiate and shape the outcome of aid. The chapter puts forward the case for studying aid paradigms from an arena perspective, dealing with the importance of discourse, the social life of policy, the multiplicity of interests, power relations, and the crucial importance of understanding the lifeworld and agency of aid workers and crisis-affected communities. The chapter demonstrates how the stories that humanitarians tell about themselves are based on highly selective views of reality and don’t include the role they themselves play in the reordering and representation of realities in humanitarian crises.
