Message-ID: <32CA8503.7D5A@mind.net> Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1997 15:38:43 +0000 From: "B. Diamond" <mailto:bdiamond@MIND.NET> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Escalating philosophising] To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
mailto:EUNSteve@AOL.COM wrote: >
> I would like help from Bob Diamond and others here in learning if Bob's
> account of the history and the motives of North/South "development" relations
> is widely believed by the development community .
> I assume, subject to Bob's correction, that he is suggesting that if it were
> not for our capitalist conversion campaigns the indigenous cultures would
> not abandon their "subsistence, communitarian economies," and that he
> believes that it would be preferable for such cultures and economies to
> remain as they are.
>
> My questions, then, are these:
>
> 1. Is Bob's account of Western villainy the common context of those engaged
> in development work?
Actually, my name is Bret, not Bob. I think that many people, in fact most people, who work in development projects believe that they are doing the "right thing," but then again so did (do) the missionaries, who--up until recently--were were arguably the single most negative influence on indigenous cultures. There are many who support the capitalist system simply because they compare our quality of life (use your own definition) to say, Eastern Europe, and then announce that capitalism is the way to go based on the "failure" of other systems such as Communism, Socialism, etc. However, I think that it's important to note that the absence of evidence is *not* evidence of absence...in other words just because there is currently no other system that works better than capitalism, does not mean that there never will/could be, yet many development projects seem to function on this premise
> 2. Do many in "development" believe that it is possible for a Western nation
> to assist in the "development" of an "indigenous" culture without the very
> vocabulary and activities of development introducing into the indigenous
> culture the new logics and lifeworlds that will unsettle and transform that
> culture? That is: is there any way to teach illiterates to read without
> changing the nature of their consciousness?(I include Freiere's way of
> changing peasants into believing that they are "oppressed" as cultural
> destruction.) Is there any way to create schools in a culture without
> schooling changing the very conceptual foundations of that culture?
As an Anthropologist (in training) I would argue that teaching the illiterate to read is not always the best course of action. Secondly, there is seldom a need to create "schools" within indigenous cultures for they are quite adept at teaching their children what they need to learn albeit in a non-western way. No, they don't teach algebra, but then most of their kids don't need to learn algebra in order to be a valuable componant of their society. Time and time again our efforts to "better" the lives of indigenous peoples fail miserably as we hold our own systems in such high regard that we truly believe that we need to "help" native peoples break free from "savagery." It should be of interest to note that numerous studies have shown that in fact the original "leisure societies" were that of the hunter gatherers who spent only a few hours a day gathering and preparing food, and the rest of their day was spent with their family and/or community telling stories, learning rituals, etc. Does this mean that we should all return to being hunter gatherers? No, but it should we have much to learn from the sustainability of these cultures. >
> One possibility, of course, is that it is not capitalism and Western rapacity
> that is the villain that destroys the indigenous culture, but the benign
> development process itself: and that there is no way to keep the locals down
> on the farm after they've seen Paree.
I'd suggest that the anthropological record is quite clear on this, the vast majority of "assimilated" indigenous tribes long for their old lives, prior to contact with the western world, even "modern" examples (the !Kung! bushmen: 1950's and the Kayapo: 1980's) are examples of culture groups devastated by switching to a cash based economy. The most common argument against the return to more traditional systems of living is that the environment has been altered/damaged beyond the ability to support these "lifestyles" any longer, however I always point out that if the planet cannot support these incredibly low-impact lifestyles, then how do we think that we're going to be able to support a world of 10 billion or so middle class? Currently, almost half of the world's population earn less than $700 (US) a year, how could we possibly support the increased materialism if that figure only doubled?
"Only when the well is dry do we know the worth of water." (Ben Franklin)
B. Diamond mailto:bdiamond@mind.net