Message-ID: <199701072103.PAA21012@audumla.students.wisc.edu> Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 15:03:30 -0600 From: Adam J Behrendt <mailto:ajbehren@STUDENTS.WISC.EDU> Subject: Pushing development-A long response To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
I have read the back and forth here with great interest, and would like to add a few thoughts of my own.This type of exchange seems similar to the one that is going on in greater development and political circles, although I am not sure that I will call it dialogue yet (Yvonne?) as it seems that sometimes certain parties are more interested in stating truth, rather than listening and being open to the construction of truth. We all can claim to hold only versions and visions of reality, unless we would claim to be all encompassing, a status I would prefer to relegate to the Divine. (The story of the blind men and the elephant cones to mind). It is only through dialogue, which means more than exchange, it means being open to shifting and changing your own interpretations based upon what new visions are being represented. This, I believe, has repercussions beyond our little discussion here, it is precisely the process which must be engaged in on a global level in the quest to hammer out a new vision of society adequate for modern times.
To the list keepers, I will attempt to justify continued participation in this thread, which may seem "off topic" to some. Too often has development been reduced to technology transfer without the accompanying ethical, cultural and political precedents and implications being explored. The neutrality of knowledge and technology has long been questioned, and the relevance of context must be stressed. It can no longer be denied that "development" is as much a struggle about meaning as it is about means.
Development might be defined in numerous levels of analysis. I believe that "development", as kerry and steve seem to be indicating, is a planetary process, one that has been going on for thousands of years. Another view might suggest a more limited view of "development" -- limited to its post WWII discourse--the "development" of the economists, the IBRD, USAID, NGOs, projects, programs etc. and its parallel with modernity and the rapid changes our whole planet has been undergoing. I will stay with the broader definition here--development as the process of human evolution and transformation--social, cultural, political, economic. Regardless, both levels are certainly linked, but it might be helpful to distinguish between them. The first allows for a much larger set of actors and processes, and demands a more complete understandings of the unfoldment of global change.
My thoughts then are threefold:
1) The nature of reality and change If the above is so, then "development" is something that everyone on the planet is engaged in, north and south alike. It also suggests an understanding of reality which is dynamic, and ever-changing, a dynamism which has been exacerbated in the last two centuries. I must agree with Steve here, "Change agents change". We are all change agents, and this only reflects the nature of reality itself. As such, peoples and cultures have always been about change, transformation and adaptations to new circumstances. I would rather see such change as "Creation" rather than "destruction", where creation may proceed either as "replacement" (in which destruction might be appropriate) or as "adaptation/hybridization" (in which case creation/transformation might be more appropriate).
One definition of "culture" might be the sets of beliefs and practices which have a evolved as a result of adaptation to the environment. It is also the mechanism through which meaning is assigned, through interpretation of experience. It in itself might be seen as the how peoples--indigenous or other--decide how to react and interpret new environments and situations. The big difference now is, the rate of change has greatly increased, and our "environment" is now more created by peoples and societies (ie Touraine's notion of historocity--history is now a story of societies action upon itself) than it is by nature alone. As such, any arguments about "tradition" or "culture" which claim static reality, are probably misfounded (ie Diamond's "museum cultures'). This is not to see that resistance to change is also not a part of human nature, it is--change and the unknown have always frightened us.
Although there might be much more to say on this, I will get to the proverbial practical point. If the above is true, development might be seen then as a clash of different meaning structures about the world, what people are, and how they should relate to nature and each other. Globalization would appear to the representation of a mixture of meanings (as I am unwilling to concede homogeneity at any level, indigenous, local, village or the "capitalistic west") which is dominant (ie "hegemonic") and is what we here seem to be referring to as "development"---utilizing its particular model for society. Hegemony, however, proceeds as a mixture of direct power, and differing levels of consent on the part of the "oppressed", as Paulo Freire pointed out to us.
Hence, other peoples and cultures everywhere have radically different models, and have been engaged in a complex process of negotiation, interpretation, and consent since colonial times. Development agents might best be served through this awareness, and follow one strategy which calls for development as something which allows a process of dialogue and consultation to be undertaken. What tools, skills and concepts do indigenous peoples, village peoples, development agents, busnisspeople, all need to enter into this process? And yes, there are major power differentials: development might be that process of advocacy which helps to, ever so slightly, make those more equal. KNowledge, negotiation, mediation, facilitation, might be the watchwords of such a strategy.
2) Heterogeneity. It seems that, as is with conversations about anything, we are often forced into the world of the abstract. This is undoubtedly a great shortcoming of how we think and do in the world. In all of my varied experiences in the different parts of the world, I have come to learn one major principle: that of context. Each situation, people, culture, country is different, and must be treated as such. This inculdes the concept of conplexity, as Tom Hodges brought to out attention so clearly:
> However a project planned within a country may also
>be completely "outside" as far as the people effected by it are
>concerned. So "within country" versus "outside the country" comparisons
>may also not tell us much.
>
>Locally planned projects may also have problems. Local men may plan
>something that will keep the local women barefoot, pregnant,
>and getting no compensation for their labor -- i.e. still effectively
>enslaved. Projects planned by village leaders may keep oppressed
>groups still oppressed.
This is so true that it seems strange that there has been so little mention of this in our discussions. National elites, local elites, whoever, might be those which have negotiated a settlement which allows "Hegemony" to continue. Context, Heterogeneity, and differentiation should always be used liberally, escaping the use of glib generalizations about processes (what is "participation", "empowerment" etc) peoples, (ie what/who are "indigenous" peoples? Ethnic groups? Local people? only uniform tribal identities?), development (human? economic? social? spiritual?). This also has to apply to process--JC's folks at COMUNIDEC using PAC and PRA are situated in a very specific set of historical and cultural contexts, and they have been hammering out processes that work for them. One of the reasons they work, is that they have been hammered out--a long painful process of learning, making mistakes, being open, etc. I would agree with Steve here again--there a int no snake oil and never has been. The dichotomy between "ideal" and reality in terminologies, concepts, principles, models is the failure that we see in the Development project/agency field so often. Participation and empowerment are goals and principles worthy of endeavor--they become snake oil when applied by people and agencies who don't believe in them or don't know how to make them real.
I also believe that this may have been what Steve had been referring to by his statement about "Fictions"--we like to create such uniform stories that, while being rooted in some truth somewhere, become elevated to all truth everywhere. I think his point about seeing the benefits, as well as the certainly disempowering, dominating, environment destroying aspects of modernity is also one that must not be swept under the rug. Rural, indigenous, village people often do desire the goods, products, technologies, concepts (ie health, gender) which such a modernity can provide. That they do may sometimes be a product of Brett's multi-million dollar advertising schemes, sometimes not. We cannot deny such people the agency and intelligence which they have in the name of their autonomy and intelligence--ie, you don't REALLYreally want that! Custodians for the common people we have then become, and I for one would not want such a responsibility.
This does not, however, preclude us from suggesting the weaknesses which are readily apparent in our system, the defectiveness in our models of society, and solicit the input and alternative concepts existing in many of the worlds other cultures. But in order that this process may go forward, rural people, indigenous people, urban poor, must be able to have some conceptual understanding of the realities behind modernity, where their culture is situated in that process, and how they might pick and choose, evaluate and judge between them. Learning to deal with this new "environment" may be one of the central tasks of local/indigenous people.
3) "The Primacy of the Personal" I will be brief here. As Robert Chambers has increasing brought to our attention, development efforts cannot be dissociated with the personal characteristics of everyone involved. Yvonne's excellent list, regarding motives and other personal aspects which we must constantly be questioning and defining. This includes national, local and other peoples as well. Moral and ethical qualities are increasingly coming to the attention of our modern society, which many believe lacks them. Such principles and virtues might make the previous discussion of religion more relevant for development--and once again, answers might only be found through increasing dialouge within and between groups about what values, virtues, morals might be applied and guide action. I have worked with a number of programs and projects in Latin America, aimed at training and developing "agents of community development" which take as their starting point the concept of "moral leadership". Without going into depth here, some of the capacities which it aims to develop are: --the capacity to evaluate one's own strengths and weakenessnes without involving ego --the capacity to oppose ones more selfish and personal desires by focusing on the needs and purposes of the community and the world --the capacity to perceive and interpret the significance of events and social processes from and adequate historical perspective --the capacity to critically analyze the evolution of the concepts of development --the capacity to learn from systematic reflection upon action with a evolving framework
There are many others. This training is aimed at rural schoolteachers and other village peoples, but in my efforts as a trainer for Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), we have often emphasized the transformation of personal characteristics and mental models more than the tools and techniques. Learning to respect other opinions, cultures and ideas is as hard for us as it is for local and national elites, often trained in authoritarian, hard science, western education systems; which did tend to dissociate them from their past, their culture and the their knowledge base.
Kerri and Steve have said that we need help. And Steve's point that: >What keeps us all from joining forces, finding our common ground, pushing
>forward?
>
>Some of the matters that divide us are easy to recognize: many here, perhaps
>you, find the antiWestern, antiscientist, andtiEnlightenment, antiCartesian
>account of our disease convincing; I find it the problem, not the solution.
>
>That is: I and others like me will not begin the process of reforming
>ourselves by accepting our guilt for the state of the world. Period.
>
>We did our best, and accomplished what we accomplished, and failed where we
>failed, and made mistake after mistake, and so be it. We will not bend the
>knee and confess our guilt to the self-proclaimed righteous of the world.
>
>We begin there.
>
>Can you work with us without our public confession , contrition, humiliation?
Is critical. Brow beating and accusations will never move us forward, but at the same time, history must not be forgotten. More are becoming conscious of the world's plight. There must be a way for them to participate to the extent that they are willing and able, step by step. This development stuff has been on a trajectory of millions of years, it will continue to take time--and effort. I am willing to concede that things are not all so black and white, and that there is little to be gained from extremism--and yet we all nee good doses of all those other stories that are out there. We need people like Steve, like those who he speaks of, we need us all. I am still idealistic enough to believe that, there are common places and common ground which unite the human race, now more than ever as its evolution to a planetary species comes to be.
The concept of global citizenship is a good place to start, but one which insists on unity in diversity, where sets of common beliefs and the acceptance of our essential interconnectedness does not preclude individual and collective diversity. Where there can be no separation of social and collective transformation and the transformation of the individual. And where the guiding principles must be justice, which means equality of rights and not sameness, harmony of science and religion, culture and technology, and autonomy. No easy task, but one that history has placed at our door. The only true error here is to shirk that responsibility.
Thanks again for the stimulating ideas from you all. My apologies for the lengthy message, and I look forward to your comments.
Adam J. Behrendt--Candidate-- Ph.D. in Development Program /Land Tenure Center University of Wisconsin-Madison 203 Eagle Heights Apt. E, Madison, WI, 53705. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Associated Program Representative Universidad Nur Department of Environment and Development Casilla 3273, Santa Cruz, Bolivia mailto:Email-DPID@nur.bo ----------------------------------------------------------------------