2.1.3 Interactionism and Foreign Aid
Symbolic interactionism is a major sociological perspective
that places emphasis on micro-scale social interaction. Symbolic interactionism
is derived from especially the work of George Herbert Mead. The basic
assumption of interactionism is that people act toward things based on the
meaning those things have for them; and these meanings are derived from social
interaction and modified through interpretation. In other words human beings
are best understood in relation
to their environment. Herbert Blumer (1969) who coined the term
"symbolic interactionism," set out three basic premises of the perspective:
Humans act toward things on the basis of the meanings they
ascribe to those things.
The meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the
social interaction that one has with others and the society.
These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an
interpretative process used by the person in dealing with the things he/she
encounters.
Blumer, following Mead, claimed that people interact with each
other by interpreting or defining each other's actions instead of merely
reacting to each other's actions. Their response is not made directly to the
actions of one another but instead is based on the meaning which they attach to
such actions. Thus, human interaction is mediated by the use of symbols and
signification, by interpretation, or by ascertaining the meaning of one
another's actions. (Blumer 1962). From this analysis of interactionism one can
note that the Interactionist interpretation of foreign aid depends entirely on
the perceptions of the actors in the aid continuum. These include the donor,
the boundary partners in the middle and the recipient at the end of the
continuum. It goes without saying that the donor knows why he is donating in
the first place; but the point that needs emphasis is that the public can only
be made to know what the donor makes public that is, the donor?s explicit
motives. However, if the donor has hidden agendas, such agendas can only be
guessed by the public, otherwise the ulterior motive remains hidden from the
public sphere and the donor is not likely to disavow his hidden agenda in any
public forum. Nonetheless, even that hidden agenda remains intrinsically part
of the donor?s definition of the aid he releases.
On the other hand, the boundary partners, because they benefit
from the aid process, are likely to accept the donors? definition of aid. They
are most likely to resist any temptation to see aid in any other light than
prescribed by the donor. However, the recipients of aid are likely to interpret
aid differently depending on their varied needs. Those in extreme need may see
aid as none other than benevolent. They hardly see any dangers of dependency
but simply accept the donor as the saviour. On the other hand, those especially
educated recipients who may not be in dire need of such aid or whose political
portfolios are threatened by their subjects? allegiance to new saviours are
likely to treat aid with suspicion. The local intellectuals may take the
suspicion further to attaching such aid with ulterior motives. The point that
needs emphasis, though, is that foreign aid is interpreted differently by
different actors owing to different needs and sensibilities.
| 
