Postdevelopment theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by User1756 (talk | contribs) at 23:00, 9 September 2010 (→See also: Added cross-reference). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Postdevelopment theory (also post-development, or anti-development) holds that the whole concept and practice of development is a reflection of Western-Northern hegemony over the rest of the world. Postdevelopment thought arose in the 1980s out of criticisms being voiced against development projects and the development theory used to justify them.

Development as ideology

The postdevelopment critique holds that modern development theory is a creation of academia in tandem with an underlying political ideology. The academic-political nature of development means it tends to be policy oriented, problem driven, and therefore only effective in terms of and in relation to a particular, pre-existing social theory.

The actual development projects thus initiated, by both governments and NGOs, are directed in accordance with this development theory. But the development theory itself assumes a framework already set in place by government and political culture in order to implement it. There is therefore a strong socially constructed aspect to development, whereby Western interests are guiding its direction and outcome, thus implying that development itself fundamentally reflects the pattern of Western hegemony.

Leading critics of development

Influenced by Ivan Illich and other critics of colonialism and postcolonialism, a number of theorists like Arturo Escobar, Gustavo Esteva have challenged the very meaning of development. According to them, the way we understand development is rooted in the earlier colonial discourse that depicts the North as "advanced" and "progressive", and the South as "backward", "degenerate" and "primitive".

They point out that a new way of thinking about development began in 1949 when President Harry Truman declared: “The old imperialism—exploitation for foreign profit—has no place in our plans. What we envisage is a program of development based on the concepts of democratic fair dealings.”

While claiming that the "era of development" began at this point, postdevelopment theorists do not suggest that the concept of development was new. What was new was to define development in terms of escaping from underdevelopment. Since the latter referred to two-thirds of the world, this meant that most societies were made to see themselves as having fallen into the undignified condition of "underdevelopment", and thus to look outside of their own cultures for salvation.

Development, according to these critics, was now a euphemism used to refer to post-war American hegemony; and it was the ideals and development programs of the United States and its (Western) European allies that would form the basis of development everywhere else.

Postdevelopment theory

Leading members of the postdevelopment school argue that development was always unjust, never worked, and has now clearly failed. According to Wolfgang Sachs, a leading member of the postdevelopment school, "the idea of development stands like a ruin in the intellectual landscape" and "it is time to dismantle this mental structure."

To cite an example of this "mental structure", they would point out how the concept of Global "poverty" is entirely a modern construct. The idea that we can measure poverty at the level of entire nations and hence label certain countries as "poor" on basis of their GNP (Gross National Product) per capita is quite new. While in non-industrial societies, poverty applies to certain individuals and generally does not carry any implications of personal inadequacy, with the advent of modernity (i.e. global consumer society) entire nations and continents were led to believe that they were now poor and in need of assistance, on the grounds that their per capita income was below a universally established minimum.

Critique of Ethnocentrism

Among the starting points and basic assumptions of postdevelopment thought is the idea that a middle-class, Western lifestyle and all that goes with it (which might include the nuclear family, mass consumption, living in suburbia and extensive private space), may neither be a realistic nor a desirable goal for the majority of the world’s population. In this sense, development is seen as requiring the loss, or indeed the deliberate extermination (ethnocide) of indigenous culture[1] or other psychologically and environmentally rich and rewarding modes of life. As a result, formerly satisfactory ways of life become dissatisfying because development changes people's perception of themselves.

Majid Rahnema cites Helena Norberg-Hodge: "To take an example, Helena Norberg-Hodge mentions how the notion of poverty hardly existed in Ladakh when she visited that country for the first time in 1975. Today she says, it has become part of the language. When visiting an outlying village some eight years ago, Helena asked a young Ladakhi where were the poorest houses. 'We have no poor houses in our village,' was the proud reply. Recently Helena saw the same Ladakhi talking to an American tourist and overheard him say, 'if only you could do something for us, we are so poor.'"[2][3]

Development is seen as a set of knowledges, interventions and worldviews (in short, discourses) which are also powers—to intervene, transform and to rule—to which postdevelopment critiques challenge the notion of a single path to development and demands acknowledgment of diversity of cultural perspectives and priorities.

For example, the politics of defining and satisfying needs is a crucial dimension of development thought, to which the concept of agency is central. But, who voices development concerns, what power relations are played out, how do the interests of development "experts" (the World Bank, IMF officials, and so on) rule the development priorities, and which voices are excluded as a result? The postdevelopment approach attempts to overcome this inequality by opening up spaces for non-Western peoples and their concerns.

It is, above all, a critique of the standard assumption about progress as to who possesses the key to it and how it may be implemented.

Arturo Escobar

Critics of development do not deny the need for change. What they argue is that in order for change to be undertaken properly, it needs to be conceived in different terms. Arturo Escobar, another leading member of the postdevelopment school, argues:

"While social change has probably always been part of the human experience, it was only within the European modernity that 'society', i.e. the whole way of life of a people, was open to empirical analysis and made the subject of planned change. And while communities in the Third World may find that there is a need for some sort of organised or directed change—in part to reverse the damage done by development—this undoubtedly will not take the form of 'designing life' or social engineering. In this long run, this means that categories and meanings have to be redefined; through their innovative political practice, new social movements of various kinds are already embarked on this process of redefining the social, and knowledge itself."

Majid Rahnema

Majid Rahnema addresses the question of what is to be done directly in his conclusion to the Post-Development Reader. He admits that it may be true that majority of people whose life has in fact greatly deteriorated do want change. But the answer he suggests is not development but the "end of development". He says that the end of development should not be seen as "an end to the search for new possibilities of change, for a relational world of friendship, or for genuine processes of regeneration able to give birth to new forms of solidarity." It should mean that the "inhumane and the ultimately destructive approach to change is over. It should resemble a call to the 'good people' everywhere to think and work together."

Criticisms

Critics have complained that postdevelopment theory is not really beyond, outside or subsequent to development discourse. According to Ray Kiely for example, postdevelopment theory is merely the latest version of a set of criticisms that have long been evident within writing and thinking about development. Development has always been about choices, with losers, and winners, dilemmas and destruction as well as creative possibility.

There are a number of more fundamental objections to the postdevelopment school. The first is that it overstates its case. For, to reject all development is also seen as rejection of the possibility for material advancement and transformation. Or, it is to ignore the tangible transformations in life opportunities and health and material well-being that has been evident in parts of the Third World. Moreover, development itself is so varied and carries so many meanings that critiques need to be specific about what they mean when they claim to be "post development".

Notable development critics

See also

Opposing theories:

Notes and references

  1. ^ Ancient Futures: learning from Ladakh by Helena Norberg-Hodge. Sierra Club Books, 1992
  2. ^ Majid Rahnema, "Poverty" in: Sachs 1992: 158-176, citation p. 161
  3. ^ Majid Rahnema also refers to Peter Bunyard, "Can Self-sufficient Communities survive the onslaught of Development?", The Ecologist, Vol. 14, 1984, p.3

Bibliography

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Postdevelopment_theory&oldid=383922567"