The First Essay

The article “Afghan Who Agreed to Trade His Daughter to End a Debt Says It Was Paid” by Alissa J. Rubin, published in the New York Times on April 1, 2013, dictates the story of an Afghan refugee whom is faced with the decision to commit his 6-year old daughter to marriage in order to settle an over-due debt with another man in the refugee camp. The desperate situation portrayed in this article aptly illuminates how “immigrants survive always in the ghostly shadow of their former selves” by displaying the devastating psychological and emotional toll seeking refuge can ensure (Hron 39). However, while the natural events of the story covered by the Times provide an intimate look into life as a refugee, the article’s presentation of this event was inadequate and blindly supportive of unhindered Western institutionalization. The article aims to make the case that humanitarian support from developed societies, like the United States and the European Union, is necessary to consolidate inter-refugee conflicts- a misleading and narrow argument unsupported by the raw vulnerability of a refugee’s point of view.

The selection of detail incorporated by Rubin focuses extensively on the role of institutions in solving the dispute between the Afghan debtor and the Afghan lender. Rubin introduces the need for outside intervention by discussing the fragility of the refugee camp’s legal system, stating: “Potentially complicating matters was that the payment was made through a jirga, Afghanistan’s unofficial justice system, which … does not have the force of a formal proceeding in the courts” (Rubin).  With this statement, the author effectively discredits the validity of any local, grass-roots judicial system and underlies the belief that sustainable judicial measures can only be achieved with a very Western institutional entity- the court. Pro-Western sentiment continues in Rubin’s selection of detail as she notes that Kimberly Motley, an American lawyer, “was present when Mr. Mohammad gave the money to the lender” (Rubin). Therefore, this statement works to portray Motley as a true humanitarian hero and discredits Mr. Mohammad’s ability to successfully approach conflict himself. By only including the failures of Mr. Mohammad (i.e. his inability to pay his debt and his willingness to sacrifice his daughter’s hand in marriage) while celebrating the actions of the humanitarian efforts, such as Motley’s judicial intervention, Rubin works to portray the humanitarians as effective change-initiators and Mr. Mohammad as part of a “universal ‘suffering form’” (Fadlalla 80).
In addition to having extensive focus on the role of institutions in this conflict, Rubin also fails to include cultural and historical context. To exemplify, Rubin introduces the conflict with the following statement: ‘Involving elders in the refugee camp, [Mr. Mohammad] agreed that if he could not pay the money back in a year, he would give his daughter in marriage to the lender’s son” (Rubin). The statement is written in a direct and pointed fashion typical of newspaper journalism. However, Rubin provides no insight into Afghani culture; thus, the deal between Mr. Mohammad and the lender is interpreted as a complete blasphemy to Western readers and moreover, these readers have no opportunity to view the event through the relevant cultural lens. Readers are forced to view the refugees in Kabul as a sub-species group, or an ‘uncivilized group’ in need of Western enlightenment, because the readers do not have access to the cultural details of Afghanistan’s history that may have inspired a better understanding of the complexity of the issue at hand. In other terms, “the generic immigrant narrative neutralize[d] immigrant suffering as a necessary part of the immigrant process” (Hron 43).

The perspectives included in this article are limited. There are no direct quotes from Mr. Mohammad or anyone native to the refugee camp. Thus, all the information provided in the story has been filtered through a Western, humanitarian lens, producing an “easy-to-consume image and narrative form” (Fadlalla 81).  The article later reveals that an anonymous donor from the United States paid for Mr. Mohammad’s debt after first reading about the situation in the New York Times a few weeks ago. While “such individual efforts to alter realities of poverty and suffering should be celebrated”, they should not be displayed as “the only viable solution for ending poverty and mitigating the effects of war” (Fadlalla 110). Rubin focuses her piece on the work of the humanitarian advocate, the anonymous donor, and other women’s rights activist organizations in the regions. She fails to incorporate any direct language or accounts from members of the refugee camp. As a result, this article would be more accurately described as ‘news account’ than a refugee story because it does not include the voice of a refugee.

In essence, the story of Mr. Mohammad’s difficult circumstance is fairly reminiscent of the life of Haileab Asgedom: “He arrived at his job one day as … the working man supporting his family. He returned home that same day as … the unemployed beetle” (Asgedom 96). While Mr. Mohammad did not face unemployment in this news article, he did experience a loss of dignity like Haileab. The journey to life as a ‘beetle’ is a delicate and vulnerable story- one that should be preserved through the voices of those who directly experienced it. A story, not just the stories of refugees, has transformative qualities; it can inspire a shared sentiment and change from the center of the soul. Unfortunately, the content and perspectives included in Alissa J. Rubin’s “Afghan Who Agreed to Trade His Daughter to End a Debt Says It Was Paid” failed to adhere to this need for intimacy. It warped the purpose of a story into a political tool, celebrating acts of “rescue and compassion … rather than … claims of entitlement and socio-economic rights” (Fadlalla 79). In total, the news article failed to be anything more than the story of a powerful superhero coming in to save the ever-endangered damsel in distress.