Building on this, we can recognise the potential of discussions about
humanitarianism, and about core concepts within them, such as cruelty, to thrive
on the recognition of contingency if they are fully to play their part in the “human
conversation”, to borrow Williams’ happy phrase.^47
It should be noted here that cruelty does not exhaust the possibilities of
framings that might spur humanitarian concern. The focus on cruelty may have its
own distorting effect, leading us to neglect scenarios in which, if cruelty is present
at all, it is much more diffuse. Cruelty does not necessarily lead to humanitarian
responses. On the contrary, it may simply lead to disgust for the perpetrators,
leading us to see them as “animals”. Cruelty is not a sine qua non of humanitarian
action, nor a guarantor of it. But the focus on conceptualising suffering in terms of
what should not be may have an extra advantage, and here we might consider the
reaction of the woman described earlier by James Orbinski:
The woman was one among many, among hundreds. She knew there were
so many more. Again she reached to touch my forearm. She didn’t hold it
this time. She nodded, looking at me. “Allez, allez... Ummera, ummera-
sha,” she said in a slow whisper. “Go, go. Courage, courage, my friend.” It
was the clearest voice I have ever heard.^48This quote illustrates an important and neglected point in the discussion of
humanitarianism. A conventional approach to normative theorising on the question
of common humanity is to look for and describe a core of human dignity that should
be protected from harm. But in this passage, what strikes us is the extreme courage
and dignity shown by the woman in the face of extreme cruelty and unimaginable
suffering. If she had not demonstrated that inner strength, the cruelty of that attack
would surely be unacceptable to the humanitarian to exactly the same degree. To
base an understanding of humanitarianism on the issue of preservation or loss of
dignified behaviour by the victim appears abhorrent. Yet arguably it is implicit in
many discussions of humanitarianism. Seeing the cue for humanitarianism, and for
humanitarian impulses, in the negative articulation suggested in this section,
47
48 Ibid.: 485.
Orbinski, An Imperfect Offering , 227.