Do No Harm

Beyond marches, beyond statements, beyond petitions, likes and angry emojis, beyond the spectator and the commentator, beyond hope and despair, beyond the visible, beyond the urge to do, do, do, we have the moral obligation, Chinua Achebe suggested, to ensure we do not ally ourselves with power against the powerless.

‍

In our societies where action often supersedes thinking, where the urge to be a saviour blinds clear seeing, what if instead of doing, we considered what it is we should stop doing, what we might need to undo? What if we took it upon ourselves to ask, on a regular basis, how we may adopt the principle of ‘do no harm’?

‍

Similar to the Hippocratic oath, which dates back to ancient Greece and sets out ethical principles that doctors should follow, the ‘do no harm’ principle emerged within the humanitarian field when critical voices recognised that sometimes humanitarian interventions can actually exacerbate conflict, and regardless of intention, can cause more harm than good.
‍

For those of us not directly impacted by horrors we see unfold in the world, we mostly see victims and perpetrators. Some may see the complicity and participation of others, some lament the inaction and silence of bystanders. In most cases, we absolve ourselves of our responsibility and prefer to focus our efforts on who to blame and how we can do good.
‍

Maybe, just maybe, what the world needs right now is for people to stop doing things. This doesn’t mean we turn away from, or accept violence we see unleashed on people, it means asking ourselves difficult or uncomfortable questions about our responsibility, our obligation towards the world, towards humanity. Going to a march or giving to charity is not enough, it's what the merchants of violence expect us to do.


‍

We are all entangled in what goes on in the world: as a voter, a tax payer, a consumer, a participant, a worker, a traveller. While the harm we cause may not be intentional, all of us are causing harm, in various ways. Through the writings of Hannah Arendt, Michael Rothberg refers to this responsibility as the implicated subject, where we are not quite perpetrator or complicit, as these would have legal implications, but we are implicated through indirect, structural and collective forms of agency that enable exploitation and domination, implications that often remain unseen and cannot be adjudicated in court.
‍

So while we might not be agents of harm, Rothberg says, we are aligned with power, “we contribute to, inhabit, inherit, or benefit from regimes of domination but do not originate or control such regimes.”
‍

Doing this kind of analysis, he argues, is not just for the sake of taking responsibility for our role in the perpetuation of violence and the destruction of the planet, it can also help us understand our privilege, open up new political spaces, think about what kind of society we want to live in, and understand our collective responsibility.
‍

Part of the reason we don’t do this kind of thinking exercise, especially in western societies, as individuals and organisations, is we have been sold the idea that injustices in faraway places can be solved by aid and charity. Many human rights NGOs have focused on individual rights, often at the expense of the collective ones. So we will be quick to claim ‘my right to’ but forget that rights work collectively, that they are interconnected.

‍

In the case of Palestine, Francesca Albanese’s latest report, ‘From an economy of occupation to an economy of genocide,’ has made clear how profitable genocide is for companies all over the world, companies most of us give money to, directly or indirectly. The report makes clear how we can begin to disentangle ourselves from implication, whether through boycotts, divestment, by refusing to work, by refusing to load weapons onto ships or planes, and by unsubscribing from companies invested in illegal properties.
‍

It doesn’t limit itself to Palestine, of course. Conflicts the world over and the destruction of the planet are deeply connected; so while there are lists of companies we can boycott (and we should), the analysis, the thinking, the undoing, personally and collectively, is crucial for all of us to practise. We cannot leave the thinking to the algorithms. Remember what Hannah Arendt said: evil comes from a failure to think. And in his essential essay on disobedience, Henry David Thoreau said that while nobody can end all ills of the world, we should at the very least not lend ourselves to the wrong which we condemn.

‍

We will be taking a short break from writing and drawing and will be back in September. As always, write to us and let us know if you have any thoughts, comments or suggestions. And do take care of yourselves and those around you, these are heartbreaking times - and we must not be defeated. In solidarity.

‍

Words, Veronica Yates and illustration, Miriam Sugranyes.

‍

References
‍

Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, Hannah Arendt.

The Implicated Subject, beyond victims and perpetrators, Michael Rothberg.

‘From economy of occupation to economy of genocide.’ Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, 16 June 2025. View here.

‘Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,’ Hannah Arendt.‍ ‍

“On the Duty of Civil Disobedience,” Henry David Thoreau, 1849. Read online here.

‍

Further Resources
‍

‍‘Decolonising Language: Towards a New Feminist Politics of Translation in the Work of Arab Women Writers, Ahlam Mosteghanemi, Nawal al Sadawim, and Assia Djebar,’ Nuha Ahmad Baaqeel, International Journal of Comparative Literature & Translation Studies, July 2019. Read here.

Practise the Art of Listening, The Rights Studio, listen here.

‘As scholars of genocide, we demand an end to Israel’s atrocities.’ Taner Akçam, Marianne Hirsch and Michael Rothberg, The Guardian, 29 July 2025. Read here.

The Revolution Will Not Be Funded, edited by INCITE, Women of Color Against Violence.

Freedom is a Constant Struggle, Angela Davis.