Control and Biopower in Contemporary Humanitarian Aid: The Case of Supplementary Feeding

Rethinking access: how humanitarian technology governance blurs control and care

“…For instance, where he asks who shows up at humanitarian crises, we suggest that it is also crucial to similarly ask what technologies ‘show up’ in the context of humanitarian crisis—and what additional governance issues emerge. This proposed conceptualisation of the role of digital technology and related forms of data in humanitarian governance conform to the suggestion that ‘technology’ is not neutral but represents a form of power that blurs care and control (Barnett, ; Malkki, ; Scott‐Smith, ).…”

“…Given the inability of such conceptualisations to account for important aspects of contemporary humanitarian governance, we propose instead to begin our analysis from a conception of technology as capable of ‘agentic capacity’ (Coole, ) and of generating constitutive effects that we need to factor in when thinking about the role of technology in humanitarian governance. Accordingly, in an effort to develop an analytical framework more attuned to the politics of humanitarian technology governance, we combine Grégoire Chamayou's insights about ‘vile bodies’ and experimentation with insights from Science and Technology Studies (STS) (notably Sheila Jasanoff) and the more recent humanitarian materiality literature (Redfield, ; Scott‐Smith, , ). We aim, by combining these insights, to provide an analytical framework through which to unpack processes and productive effects at the stages where technology and data enable an expansion of governance (control) and concurrent questions about how best to guard this accessibility against the risk that arises when or if these data would be used for other purposes than humanitarian protection.…”

“…Scholars have documented how, in the colonial periphery, various new medical technologies (including vaccination techniques) have been tested in experiments that exposed colonial subjects to insecurities and harmful side effects (Petryna, , ). Looking at experimental uses of new technology in contemporary humanitarian settings, we see trials of unapproved medical innovations as well as testing of a range of technological innovations, from piloting of mobile health platforms (Tomlinson et al, ) to trials of ‘fortified blended foods’ (Scott‐Smith, , ), genetically modified foods, and other biometric technologies (Jacobsen, , ). These interventions are often justified on the basis of improvements in ‘care', even as their effectiveness is often mixed.…”

“How Little Progress”? A Political Economy of Postcolonial Nutrition

“…The home‐based palliative approach to malnutrition using RUTFs has slashed mortality and has been rightly heralded as a revolution in nutritional science. However, recent research has emphasized concern over the social, political, and historical contexts in which new nutrition treatments are utilized (see especially, Scott‐Smith , ; for a contextualization of Plumpy'nut see also, Redfield ). In the West, the high‐modernist approach to the imagined protein shortage quickly dissipated.…”

“…We can again turn to Foucault to consider these changes. Scott‐Smith suggests that discussing nutrition supplements with reference to biopower lacks relevance in refugee or crisis contexts “because many humanitarian activities operate not through a dispersed, productive power, but in the opposite manner: in a way that is top‐down, controlling, and paternalistic” (Scott‐Smith : 25). However, in noncrisis contexts, where nutrition care forms an important aspect of everyday maternal and child‐health programs, biopower becomes more relevant.…”