The text "Sophia's choice: Debt, social welfare, and racial finance capitalism" by Erin Torkelson succeeds in showing how a privatized company portrays the socially vulnerable as debtors and how this can be traced back to a history of 'racial capitalism' that is reproduced intergenerationally and began long before apartheid and goes far beyond the borders of South Africa.

Cedric Robinson's (2000) 

Inspired by Torkelson's explanations of how Net1 in South Africa legitimized the expropriation of people's rights by classifying them as "risky" or "criminal" actors, I would like to dedicate this journal-entry to a different, yet partly related interactive relationship, this is the interaction of vulnerable people with NGO's. 

Using a study of Zaatari Camp in Jordan by Ayham Dalal (2015), I would like to address the interactive, yet hierarchical relationship NGOs have with refugees. This is accompanied by beliefs that are reproduced by NGOs but counteracted by the people in the camp through independent entrepreneurial activities. I would like to complement this study with personal experiences in the field of fundraising and the acquisition of new donors for aid organizations in Switzerland because I also see clear parallels for the reproduction of problematic beliefs of the "so-called people in need", who are partly subjectivized as non-independent victims. A second reason why I had to think of my times as a fundraiser for aid organizations when reading Torkelson's text on Net1 was that in this business, too, a private profit-oriented company stands in between and the pressure on the employees to reach certain numbers also sometimes leads to problematic methods in the employees' dealings with potential donors.

Dalal defines refugee camps as extraterritorial zones where refugees are reduced to victims of war and thus mere recipients of aid (Dalal 2015, 268). Using the example of Zaatari camp in Jordan, he describes how camps, however, become urbanized over time, and how their initially empty spaces can become markets and living spaces (Dalal 2015, 263). 

The increasing flow of refugees arriving in Jordan has drastically changed Zaatari camp. It expanded from the size of a farm to a city in a short period, and more humanitarian aid had to be distributed to refugees in the camp. In mid-2013, UNHCR estimated that approximately 350,000 refugees were living in the camp (Dalal 2015, 268).

Upon arrival, refugees were provided with basic food items such as rice, lentils, bulgur, and oil, as well as non-food items such as mattresses, bedding, and tents. However, the humanitarian aid distributed was usually insufficient to meet the immediate needs of the refugees. This distribution of aid aimed to provide basic needs - with a minimum of assets for survival. The moment these basic needs are fulfilled, Dalal sees as the moment in which cultural and individual needs want to be addressed and as the start of socioeconomic processes (Dalal 2015, 268). 

"The gap between monthly expenditures and income is another factor in the emergence of socio-economics. Interestingly, an ACTED (2013) study in Zaatari camp on a household level revealed that the total average of expenditure was 292 JD, whereas the total average income was 208 JD, leaving an average deficiency of 84 JD per month. The study does not state how incomes were gained; however, it states further that only 20% of respondents had zero income and are dependent on their family savings, while 80% earned income in the last 30 days of the interview."

 (Dalal 2015, 269). 

In Zaatari camp, refugees succeed in turning standardized humanitarian aid into economic circuits, but not without opposition from NGOs (Dalal 2015, 275-76). Refugee camps have long been considered the preferred choice for aid organizations to make projects, as it was assumed that aid could be easily delivered, distributed, and monitored there. In fact, in many cases, refugee survival is highly dependent on the distribution of humanitarian aid, especially in emergency situations. However, while humanitarian organizations struggle to acknowledge the urbanization of camps, rather than using this inevitable process positively, camps are perceived as a "financial crisis,", especially in protracted situations (Dalal 2015, 265). Thus, in the example of Zaarari camp, it can be seen that refugees are subjectivied and degraded to victims by organizations and refugee camps were seen as good structures to achieve concrete numbers and goals. One reason for this approach I see is that NGOs although officially non-profit, still depend on the favor of donors and their money, be they governmental or private. As a result, the focus could be partly on projects that deliver measurable figures but are not automatically geared towards long-term and sustainable development. Independent developments were criminalized and were not desired for a long time in the example of the Zaatari camp, and thus we have a classification of people as "risky" or "criminal" actors here as well.

This dynamic and these beliefs are for me partly also noticeable in Switzerland, I would say not only in the way NGOs act in the implementation of projects but also in the collection of donations and I would like to explain this briefly based on personal experience. After graduating from school, I worked for a few months in fundraising for aid organizations and in the acquisition of new donors. This is because I wanted to earn money and this preferably with "meaningful" work. The work involved renting public places for a day, setting up an information stand, and speaking to passers-by to present the organization's projects to them, to win them as long-term donors. However, I was not employed directly by an aid organization, but by Corris AG, a profit-oriented company that did the fundraising for various NGOs. I found this problematic, but my boss explained to me that organizing fundraising for NGOs was time-consuming and costly and that in this way less money could go into fundraising and administration, and accordingly more money into the projects. 

We were trained on how to start the conversation, how to explain the projects as well as which arguments would be the most convincing in the end. For example, I once worked for an organization that distributed specially designed food rations to hungry children. To convince people, we had the packages at the stand, we could say exactly how many calories and which important nutrients the children could eat through these packages, how much a package costs, as well as we had concrete figures on how many of these packages could be distributed in which project in the last year. This is of course only an example of a project of this NGO and I do not want to generalize the work of different organizations in any way. However, this strategy of aid and the focus on measurability and marketing instead of sustainable development coincides for me very much with the processes described by Dalal in the support in Zaatari Camp. Of course, the NGO also has other projects which are more focused on education or also have longer-term goals, but with these, there is hardly any marketing done, as well as these have for me a bland aftertaste of the mindset of "bringing knowledge and education to the people". One spoke of these projects only if people felt the way of the help by food rations to be symptom fight and were concretely interested in other projects, this was however with the fewest people the case. To convince people to donate, it was usually shown how little money it is for them and how much it could be for a poor child. It was about making people feel guilty if they didn't help but feel like they were saving lives if they did. Also, some of my work colleagues have brought harsh arguments and often processed young people, students, until they gave in and went along. On the one hand, this was because my colleagues were convinced that they were doing something good, but also because of the pressure to reach certain numbers. 

What I find problematic in these dynamics is on the one hand that colonial images of people in need are portrayed as helpless people without initiative and that the donating Swiss citizen sees himself as a savior. I also find it problematic that NGOs often implement and promote projects, simply because they offer measurable numbers but can never do justice to the complexity of the area in which the projects take place.

Thus, it can be shown that even in the relationship of aid organizations with vulnerable people, often comparable relationships can arise as those of people with the state or governmental institutions, especially when it comes to refugee projects. It can also be seen that even if an organization is officially declared as non-profit, it still functions in a capitalist way of thinking and is therefore dependent on measurable figures to receive donations, which in turn influences the way it deals with donors as well as the people involved in the implementation of the projects, and this reproduces an image of a lack of autonomy on the part of those affected, which does not correspond to reality. In Zaatari Camp, it can even be shown that this exercise of self-reliance can improve the situation of the refugees, and yet this is not desirable for NGOs because they cannot measure the "help".