As per the request of miss Lottie, I'm posting my end-of-term
discursive essays. This one was for my "Social Development" class
and I apologize that it's rubbish- I haven't even reread it since I
finished writing it. This is literally the first and final draft,
but I like it because it's the first essay I've ever written where I
had the audacity to cite Bono with derision and discuss the
construction of a "bogeyman" (that's "boogie man" to you 'murican
polk). Doesn't make the essay any better. But, again, it is
what it is. So it goes. It too looks a lot prettier in
Word. There are italics and indentations... it's pretty
wild. Ayep, like I say- here in Edinburgh? Yeah, we know
how to party...
*****
“When all you have is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail.” -Kaplan
An Examination of the Relevance of this Aphorism to the Modern Development Era
Between the
popularisation of the millennium development goals and celebrity
endorsed global political campaigns such as the “Make Poverty History”
and “ONE” campaigns, development has become an increasingly trendy
staple of political pop culture. Currently attached to grandiose
altruistic notions of redistributing the wealth of nations and
eradicating poverty once and for all, as a conceptual catchphrase,
‘development’ holds tremendous social and political caché.
However, the wake of colonialism left many controversial ethical and
practical issues surrounding its successor, ‘development’.
Development itself is not so one-dimensional; bearing this complex
history as well as a host of highly contentious debates over the
validity of its theory and application, development is in fact a truly
multi-dimensional concept, complete with both virtues and flaws
contributing to its reality.
Proponents of
development boast that, when successful, development allows for the
eradication of poverty and other social ills by way of simple and
effective strategies that can be applied to many situations.
Conversely, critics of development claim that, for that very reason,
development as a concept is fatally flawed; by reducing complex
problems and applying simple generic “quick fix” solutions, development
is not only ineffective and potentially unsustainable, but also exposes
ethnocentric intentions behind the application. Social anthropologists,
in particular, remain consistently sceptical of development as a
practice because development the very term ‘development’ implies
hegemony and patronage, while in practice, it seeks to change cultures,
where anthropology attempts to preserve them (Green, 2003:6).
Thus the ideology,
practice, and effects of development are neither overwhelmingly
positive (as Bono, and other starry eyed idealists, might lead one to
believe) nor entirely negative (as some reputed social scientists, such
as Escobar and Sachs insist). It is, in fact, both, however, much
like Kaplan’s aphorism implies, in both ideology and practice, the
temptation to reduce and oversimplify problems in favour of prescribing
universal remedies makes the concept immediately questionable.
However this need not be the case. In order to counterbalance
essentialism, both practitioners and critics of development alike must
look at the multiple facets that shape development discourse, and the
factors that contribute to both its successes and failures, then
utilise said knowledge to either improve the existing mechanism of
development or potentially generate an entire new one.
"Colonialism and Development: Necessary Tools of the Trade?"
The undeniable
connection between colonialism and development causes a great deal of
scepticism amongst many, as the intentions behind and methods of
development are assigned immediate suspicion and thereby subjected to
copious scrutiny. In the wake of World War II, imperialism fell out of
favour, forcing many colonial empires to dismantle, and subsequently
redistribute their power. It was during this period that Harry Truman
gave his inaugural speech, officially stating a desire to expand and
improve “underdeveloped” areas. It follows, according to Escobar
(1988 and 1995, as cited by Gardner and Lewis, 1996: 1), that
development, as a concept, is therefore “embedded in neo-colonial
constructions of the world and is a key ideological tool in global
power relations”. Development is not seen as a remedy to colonialism,
but instead its replacement.
Although
Truman couched his desires in terms of economic growth and modernity in
a concerted effort to divorce his program from colonialism (Gardner and
Lewis, 1996: 6; Nustad, 2001: 480), he did not completely exorcise the
demons left over from imperial rule. With but a few words, he set
the standard for essentialism that would be both the blessing and the
curse of development: “From that day… the majority of the world’s
population were no longer seen as diverse peoples, but were turned into
a homogenous mass characterised by their condition as ‘underdeveloped’”
(Nustad, 2001: 480). This is problematic as it sets an immediate
precedent of uniformity, both by stripping the so-called
‘underdeveloped’ cultures of their particularity, and thereby also
creating a standard for prescribing general remedies.
Likewise,
development is inextricably twinned with the principles of
Enlightenment, which themselves overflow with covert
ethnocentrism. With the heavy focus on the gathering knowledge of
through rational processes and empirical means, the principles of
Enlightenment simultaneously created the polarity between ‘primitive’
and ‘civilised’, ‘backward’ and ‘advanced’, ‘superstitious’ and
‘scientific’ (Gardner and Lewis, 1996: 4). Current development
discourse, although a great deal more reflexive about the overt racism
and hegemonic implications of such distinctions, much of the doctrine
its predecessor has carried over in subtext, as have some practical
applications of imposing ones own cultural priorities and practices
upon another. With the axiom of these guiding principles, both
colonialism and development tend to grow myopic when assessing the
situation of a society and its needs. As Gardner and Lewis (ibid:
5) note, comparing the two, colonialism and development, exposes many
residual similarities. Colonial discourse constructed the
‘natives’ as childlike, and the colonisers as rational agents, often
expressing this in terms of the relationship between a parent and a
minor. Similarly, in development discourse, the distinction is
drawn between the ‘underdeveloped’ South and the ‘developed’ North,
couched in moralistic, judgmental overtones and expressed in terms of
aid trusteeship. The motivation behind colonial rule was
principally that of economic gain, while a balance of altruistic
intentions and political, economic benefits fuels the motivation for
development. Crucially, colonial rule introduced European
cultural elements into the colonised society, such as European
education systems, Christianity, as well as political bureaucratic
structures, with the express purpose of changing the society at
hand. Development also aims to change the ‘underdeveloped’
society, but only insofar as to rectify any problems proving damaging
to the good of the society. Participatory method is the current
raison d’être, whereby members of the society articulate their needs to
the developers instead of vice versa, however some would argue that
this is more or less a mere formality.
As development
has increasingly become a reified professionalized discourse in its own
right, it has become the proverbial hammer, narrowly bounded and
regimented in its pursuit of the nail. Escobar explains that
development has, itself, transformed into ‘a discourse: a particular
mode of thinking and a source of practice designed to instil in
‘underdeveloped’ countries the desire to strive towards industrial and
economic growth” (1988 and 1995, as cited by Gardner and Lewis,
1996:6). The commodification of aid provides a particularly acute
example of this redirection of sustained colonial relations; multiple
organizations have formed to go about the business of aid, in which
‘development’ is likened to a ‘product’ (Gardner and Lewis, 1996:
9). Likewise, donors tend to give most to their former colonies,
but also effectively compete with one another in an effort to provide
aid because of both the political and economic benefits that accompany
assisting impoverished nations (ibid: 10). It is easy to become
cynical about this commodification of aid, however, it is important to
recognise that the practice is not entirely exploitative, as evidenced
by the fact that most aid remains aimed at the neediest, not the
biggest potential market (ibid). This provides a prime example of
the consistent theme of good, however misguided, intentions in
development practice.
It is crucial
to distinguish between intentions and results, notes by Ferguson (1990,
as cited by Gardner and Lewis, 1996:11), because the two are not
necessarily categorically similar. “Whatever interests may be at
work and whatever [aid projects] may think they are doing, they can
only operate through a complex set of social and cultural structures so
deeply embedded and so ill-perceived that the outcome may be only a
baroque and unrecognisable transformation of the original
intention.” Ferguson thus posits that the unfavourable outcomes
development do not necessarily represent a conscious attempt to sustain
neo-colonial relationships. As a result, one should not bother
wasting his or her time assigning a value judgment to the practice of
development and the distribution of aid, but rather, one must
acknowledge its existence and look at what it does and doesn’t do well,
and thereby seek ways to improve upon it (ibid; also in Nustad, 2001:
481). However, whilst, on these grounds, development may claim
superiority over the blatant racism inherent to the colonial agenda, it
still retains a great deal of imperial characteristics, even if such
motives are not necessarily overt. Whilst both development
practitioners and scholars continue to wrestle against this reality by
introducing participatory methods to better me the needs of those being
‘developed’, no matter how well the intentions are in origin and are
subsequently enacted, the fact remains that it is an external
imposition of one’s cultural priorities upon another and must therefore
remain constantly reflexive in order not to cross the bounds of
hegemony.
"Modernisation: The Only Useful Tool?"
Because of the
principles of Enlightenment form the base of development discourse, the
concept of ‘development’ and the concept of ‘modernisation’ thus forge
an almost inextricable relationship. The heart of development is
embedded in the concept of social ‘betterment’ via economic growth, and
likewise, social betterment is very often conflated with the quest for
modernity via industrialisation and urbanisation. In the
inaugural speech which officially introduced the term development (as
opposed to colonialism), Truman specifically stated that his “bold new
programme” would be aimed at “making the benefits of our scientific
advances and industrial progress available for the improvement and
growth of underdeveloped areas” (as cited in Gardner and Lewis, 1996:
6). This conflation of technological advancement, urbanisation
and industrialisation with development is deeply problematic, as it
does not take into account the different cultures and the relativity of
so-called ‘betterment’. As Gardner and Lewis (1996: 14) note,
this “assumption that all change inevitably follows the Western model
is both breathtakingly ethnocentric and empirically incorrect”.
Not all societies benefit from industrialisation and modernisation in
the same way, and it can in fact prove detrimental to some.
As Sachs
(1989, as cited by Pieterse, 2000: 177) explains, low activity in the
market economy does not necessarily equate to deprivation, nor does
economic growth necessarily equate to enhanced standards of
living. “As societies in the affluent North demonstrate, the
increased use of highly sophisticated technology or a fast growing GNP
does not necessarily eradicate poverty, illiteracy or homelessness,
although it may well alter the ways in which these ills are
experienced” (Gardner and Lewis, 1996: 7). The unflattering
reality of imposing industrialisation and technological advancement
strategies on a culture with which it is not conducive is that
modernisation ma not alleviate the problems facing society, but in fact
could potentially exacerbate them by widening the poverty gap.
Pieterse
(200:177) warns, however, that one should not assume, in the other
extreme, that low market participation equates to high social
participation. To do so, one runs the risk of both homogenizing
all ‘underdeveloped’ nations under a single romantic notion that is
both debatable and potentially misleading. Generalising the “mass
poor” (Gardner and Lewis, 1996: 15) and subsequently prescribing
modernity as a remedy reflects Kaplan’s aphorism: when all one
knows is a market economy industry and a certain technological
standard, the whole world looks like a homogenously ‘primitive’ and
impoverished. One must instead reflect upon the reality of the
individual circumstances facing a culture and assess accordingly.
When too rigidly fixed upon a particular mode of thought, in relation
to the conceptualising and subsequent solving of a problem that is
inherently complex, it becomes easy to ignore other tools, other
solutions, and also other arising problems.
The cycles of
dependence, which arise out of the fundamentally ethnocentric
imposition of modernisation, provide a problematic scenario.
Generally, development discourse, modernisation theory in particular,
operates under the assumption that all societies are on a more or less
linear path heading for the same destination (Ferguson, 1997:
154). However, this is misleading at best; just because a system
works for one culture, it does not necessarily mean it will work for
all, and in fact, it can make the situation significantly worse.
Such is the basis for the concept of sustainability: if a
practice is artificially appointed, but does not suit the culture upon
which it has been imposed, the burden can lead to friction, even
violent conflict, as well as misappropriation of funding and
irresponsible use of resources, which could then lead to regression
rather than progression (Thin, 2002: 39). Proving that even the
seemingly straightforward relationship of a hammer and a nail can in
fact be much more complicated, and not work the way one anticipated at
all.
"Post-Development: Critically Examining the Tools and the Means of Employment"
Focused around
claims of neo-colonialism and critiques of the aforementioned
assumption of universal linear destination for all societies,
post-development discourse cites specific examples of development
failure with the purpose of leaving little hope for the future of
development theory and practice. Post-development unforgivingly
brands all development projects as operative under neo-colonial
intentions and accuses them of subsequently executing questionable
projects with these ulterior motives in mind that are doomed to fail
(Pieterse, 2000; Nustad, 2001; Ferguson, 1997). However, this
approach focuses too heavily on the actions of the practitioners and
denudes those being developed of their agency. “By leaving out or
simplifying agency [post-development critics] portray development as
both more unified and more powerful than it is…the spread of hegemonic
discourses such as development is always played out in local encounters
and through human agency” (Nustad, 2001: 486). Treating people of
an ‘underdeveloped’ culture as if they are merely passive hirelings
proves both dehumanising to the people involved and fundamentally
misleading for future development endeavours. To achieve a more
accurate picture, one must analyse the degrading systems in place,
however, must also recognise the ways in which individuals and
collective societies strategise, maximise and resist the structures of
development that are imposed upon them, while also looking at case
studies of embracing local cultures embracing a development project
with much success (Gardner and Lewis, 1996: 18).
This marks one
primary critique of Post-Development rhetoric: that post-development
makes little or no attempt to represent any social improvement makes
the argument shallow and not altogether trustworthy. Consistently
offering only case studies of failure and ignoring successes (which are
fact, and thus part of the reality of modern development) only serves
to construct an equivocal villain, a development bogeyman, of
sorts. Neil Thin (2002: 37) explains that this largely stems from
the fact that the failures are simply much more obvious than the
successes. “Social fragmentation, however, tens to manifest
itself in sudden ruptures and pathological behaviour and is therefore
much more readily identified than the gradual onset of social
progress”. The source of pessimism is simply more accessible than
the source of optimism (ibid; see also Pieterse, 2000: 184). One
must look deeper at the whole picture in order to accurately assess
both success and failure in the appropriate context. Thin (ibid:
46) further points out that many so-called failures are often the
result of either poorly articulated goals or goals that are so broad
and relative that they are fundamentally untenable.
“Disappointment refers primarily to frustrated aspirations and not to
whether or not progress has occurred… Liberty, prosperity, education,
and justice are all abstractions, which means that progress under these
criteria is always going to be debatable… the default appears to be ‘if
in doubt, assume social degeneration’”.
Ironically, in
creating such a vehement, and sometimes dubious, critique of
development, post-development itself employs the very techniques it so
ardently critiques: equivocation, essentialism, and a hegemonic
designation of homogeneity. As Pieterse (2000:183) illustrates
“Escobar plays games of rhetoric: in referring to development as
‘Development’ and thus suggesting its homogeneity and consistency, he
essentialises ‘development’… Apparently this kind of essentialising of
‘development’ is necessary in order to arrive at the radical
repudiation of development, and without this anti-development pathos,
the post-development perspective loses its foundation”. So, in
effect, Escobar does to development in his critiques what he is
critiquing ‘Development’ for doing in practice: reducing the whole to a
single homogenous assumption, and thereby prescribing his discontent
writ large.
Similarly,
Thin (2002: 36) notes that little to no attempt has been made to find
out how the poor themselves experience poverty and social progress
which is itself represents a somewhat hegemonic mindset, as one assumes
he or she can speak for the experience of the poor better than the poor
can speak for themselves. Thus in this case, the proverbial
hammer of Kaplan’s aphorism becomes manifest in the dogmatic, half
blind critiques of Escobar and Sachs, and the nail becomes the
prescription of failure in development theory and practice. This
approach to enquiry creates something of a self-fulfilling prophecy: if
one looks for failures, one will inevitably find them aplenty, but they
will not necessarily be representative, so are they a valid basis for
critique? Simply stopping at critique achieves nothing and only
reproduces that which one is critiquing in the first place.
"Looking Beyond the Status Quo: Reinventing Tools and Exploring Them Anew"
Having
established that development is both a successful and flawed concept in
application and in theory, the daunting task remains of tackling the
question “What now?” In an attempt to democratise the development
process, the current fashion in development discourse and practice is
that of participatory methodology. However, Nustad, among others,
argues that participatory methods are a mere tokenistic formality, and
in fact, democracy only slows down the process and inhibits the
effective execution of the project. “Although newer versions of
development argue against a top-down approach to development…a
development process is always initiated with a specific goal in mind
and, although developers portray themselves as ‘facilitators’, they
still know where the process ought to be heading’ (2001: 481). He
goes on to also explain that participatory methods can prove
inhibitive, as “research has shown how the restrictions imposed on the
developers’ conception of their task sometimes undermines the whole
intervention” (2001: 488). Should development practitioners thus
be given more prescriptive freedom? This remains a tenuous issue,
as there is the ever-present fear of inadequately manoeuvring the line
between beneficiary aid and blind hegemonic imposition. I think
it safe to say that very few people would argue that coming full circle
with a return to the colonial roots is the healthiest option for the
progression of development.
In response to
the post-development critiques, there have arisen a slew of
‘alternative development’ schemes. However, most post-development
theorists derisively dismiss ‘alternative development’ as the
proverbial ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’, maintaining the essence of
development disguised by a modified name and given a slightly different
angle of approach. But whether correct or not, critics of
post-development cite the failure of theorists, in light of their
overwhelmingly negative critique of development, to provide any
alternative possibilities. Nustad (2001: 488), however, defends
this stance, noting that to offer alternatives indicates a belief that
“the apparatus now in place has the capacity to deliver a solution”,
which, he goes on to say, there are significant reasons to doubt to be
the case. Whilst it is not necessarily wise to brand all
development as being fatally flawed, in order to best find ways to
improve upon the existing system, it is important to recognize the
principle weaknesses in both theoretical and practical approaches to
poverty and its eradication.
When
prescribing practical solutions to broad interrelated social problems,
myopia is an easy condition to develop. However, becoming fixated
on a single means toward a given end can potentially blind one to other
potential solutions that may in fact exceed the current one. As
development faces a crossroads, of sorts, between progress and decline,
perhaps it is time to turn toward new approaches to new solutions
altogether. “The way forward for development studies, I believe, is to
examine how development interventions are transformed, reformulated,
adopted, or resisted in local encounters… there is an important task
ahead of reconstituting poverty within the political domain: namely,
examining how poverty is produced, and the relationship between
processes that produce wealth and poverty” (Nustad, 2001: 485 and
488). Instead of treating poverty as the principle problem to
remedy, recognising that it is generally the symptom of much larger
socio-structural inequalities provides greater scope for long-term
development success. Thus, one must either find new relationships
between the proverbial hammer and nail, or perhaps, throw them out
altogether in favour of something new, something unknown.
Something fundamentally different.
References:
Ferguson, J. (1997), ‘Anthropology and its evil twin: “Development” in
the Constitution of a Discipline’. In F. Cooper and R. Packard
[eds], International Development and the Social Sciences: Essays on the
History and Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Gardner, K and D. Lewis (1996), Anthropology, Development and the Post-Modern Challenge. London: Pluto.
Green, M. (2003), ‘International Development, Social Analysis, and
Anthropology? Applying Anthropology In and To Development’. Paper at
Workshop on Applications of Anthropology: Loughborough. Available
Online:
http://www.loboro.ac.uk/departments/ss/a
pplicationsofanthropology/greenpaper.htm
Pieterse, J.N. (2000), ‘After Post-Development’. Third World Quarterly, 21(2): 175-191.
Nustad, K.G. (2001),‘Development: the Devil We Know?’, Third World Quarterly, 22(4): 479-489.
Thin, N. (2002), Social Progress and Sustainable Development. London:IT Publications.
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
contemplative
amused
sleepy
exhausted
frustrated