Postdevelopment theory

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2010)

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 and economical ideology. The academic, political, and economical 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.

Development as an ideology and a social vision is ingrained in the ideals of modernization, which holds western economic structure and society as a universal model for others to follow and achieve. Rooted to western influence, the developmental discourse reflects the unequal power relations between the west and the rest of the world, whereby the western knowledge of development, approach toward development, and ideal of what is development and progress is directing the course for the rest of the world.

Reviewing development

Influenced by Ivan Illich and other critics of colonialism and postcolonialism, a number of post-development theorists like Arturo Escobar and 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.

Post-development theory

Post-development theory arose in the 1980s and 1990s through the works of scholars like A. Escobar, G. Esteva, M. Rahnema, W. Sachs, S. Latouche, G. Rist and F. Sabelli. Leading members of the post-development school argue that development was always unjust, never worked, and has now clearly failed. According to Wolfgang Sachs, a leading member of the post-development school, "the idea of development stands like a ruin in the intellectual landscape" and "it is time to dismantle this mental structure." ^[1]

To cite an example of this "mental structure", they would point out how the concept of development has resulted in the hierarchy of developed and underdeveloped nations, where the developed nations are seen as more advanced and superior to the underdeveloped nations that are conceived as inferior, in need of help from the developed nations, and desiring to be like the developed nations. The post-development school of thought points out that the models of development are often ethnocentric (in this case Eurocentric), universalist, and based on western models of industrialization that are unsustainable in this world of limited resources and ineffective for their ignorance of the local, cultural and historical contexts of the people they are applied to. In essence, the problem post development theorists have with development and its practice is that they see development discourses as too influenced or dominated by the west, and promote more pluralism in ideas about development.

Critique of Ethnocentrism and Universalism

Among the starting points and basic assumptions of post-development 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^[2] 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.'"^[3][4]

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 post-development 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 post-development 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.

Alternatives to Development

More than just a critique of development, post-development school of thought also considers the alternative methods to bring about positive change. Post-development school proposes a particular vision of society that wishes to remove itself from the discourse of development, modernity, politics, cultural and economical influences from the west, and market oriented and centralized authoritarian societies.

In his works, Escobar has outlined the common features of post-development thought and societal vision. According to Escobar, post-development school of thought is interested (in terms of searching for an alternative to development) in "local culture and knowledge; a critical stance toward established scientific discourses; and the defense and promotion of localized, pluralistic grassroots movements." Grassroots movements, Escober argues, are "local, pluralistic, and distrust organized politics and development establishment."

Post-development takes its inspiration from vernacular societies, the informal sector and frugal rather than materialistic lifestyles. Furthermore, post-development theorists advocate for structural changes. According to Escobar, post-developmental thinking believes that the economy needs to based around solidarity and reciprocity; politics have to be based on direct democracy; and knowledge systems should be traditional, or at least a hybrid of modern and traditional knowledge.

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 post-development 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 a large 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 is not "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."

Wolfgang Sachs and The Development Dictionary

Wolfgang Sachs is a leading writer in post-development thought. Most of his writing is focused on environmentally sustainable development and how past notions of development are naturally unsustainable practices on our finite planet. However, in 1992 he co-authored and edited The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power which contributed greatly to the compilation of post development literature as a general theory.

This manifesto informs that the new era of development that emerged in the 1950s was created by the United States in order to secure their new hegemonic position in the global community. Sachs explains that the concept of “underdevelopment” was actually constructed on January 20, 1949 after President Truman’s speech in which he popularized the word. The creation of this word was a subtle way to secure American hegemony by instilling the idea that America was at the top and other countries were on a lower pillar on a linear and singular trajectory of development. It created a homogeneous identity for these countries and stripped them of their own diverse identities. “It converts participation into a manipulative trick to involve people in struggles for getting what the powerful want to impose on them.”^[5]

The Development Dictionary tracks the biological metaphor of development and how it was transferred to the social sphere and perpetuated the idea that there is one natural way to develop into the perfect form. To develop in a different way from the natural order of things was to become a disfigured anomaly. It is clear how a definition like this could provide dangerous colonial justification and can be connected to colonial discourse and mainstream development theories. Development was reduced to a simple measurement of the economic growth of per capita production.

Sachs defines this essay as a cry for public awareness of the “limits of development.” He leaves the reader with the idea of the “New Commons” and that men and women should begin with this awareness to introduce new political policies with room for creativity and innovation in diverse development paths.

Criticisms

Critics have complained that post-development theory is not really beyond, outside or subsequent to development discourse. According to Ray Kiely for example, post-development 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". By damning development all together, post-development theorist fail to notice the heterogeneity within development discourse, whereby they categorize all development under the umbrella of western hegemony, contradictively applying the same sort of essentialist generalization post-development theorists reject.

Critics also argue that post-development perpetuates cultural relativism: the idea that cultural beliefs and practices should be judged by others from the point of view of those who are part of it. By accepting all cultural behaviors and beliefs as valid and rejecting a universal standard for living and understanding life, critics of post-development argue that post-development represents, in relativism, the opposite extreme of universalism, which also has dangerous implications.

They also argue that by rejecting a top-down centralized approach to development and promoting development through local means, post-development thought perpetuates neo-liberalism ideals. By making locals responsible for their own predicament, post-development unintentionally agrees with neo-liberalist ideals that favors decentralized projects and wants to leave the poor to their fate. Critics also point out that not all grassroots movements are progressive. Post-development is seen to be empowering anti-modern fundamentalists and traditionalists, who may hold non-progressive and oppressive values.

Notable development critics

See also

Opposing theories:

• Modernization Theory
• Neoliberalism

Notes and references

Bibliography

• The Post-Development Reader, ed. by Majid Rahnema and Victoria Bawtree, London: Zed Books, 1997. ISBN 1-85649-473-X
• Arturo Escobar: Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995, ISBN 0-691-00102-2
• Serge Latouche: In the Wake of the Affluent Society: An Exploration of Post-Development, London: Zed Books, 1993
• Gilbert Rist: The History of Development: From Western Origins to Global Faith, Expanded Edition, London: Zed Books, 2003
• Wolfgang Sachs(ed.): The Development Reader. A Guide to Kowledge and Power, London: Zed Books 1992, ISBN 1-85649-044-0
• Gilbert Rist, The History of Development: From Western Origins to Global Faith, Expanded Edition, London: Zed Books, 2003, ISBN 1-84277-181-7
• The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power, ed. by Wolfgang Sachs, London: Zed Books, 1992, ISBN 1-85649-044-0
• Oren Ginzburg: There You Go! ISBN 974-92863-0-8
• Mohandas Gandhi: Hind Swaraj (1909)
• Ivan Illich: Tools for Conviviality (1973)
• Post-Development Reader[1] (Zed Books, ed. Majid Rahnema, 1997), ISBN 1-85649-474-8
• Henry Thoreau: Walden (1854)
• John. H. Bodley, Victims of Progress, 5th Edition, AltaMira Press, 2008
• Rapley. J.(2004). Development studies and post-development critique. Progress in Development Studies.4:350. doi:10.1191/1464993404ps095p
• Pieterse. J. N.(2000). After post-development. Third World Quarterly.21(2), p. 175-191.
• Ziai. A.(Eds.).(2007). Exploring post-development theory and practice, problem and perspectives. London; New York: Routledge.
• Post-development.(2009). In D.Gregory, R.Johnston, G.Pratt, M.J.Watts & S.Whatmore (Eds.), A dictionary of geography. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

External links

• The network of growth objectors for the post-development - ROCADe

v t e Indigenous rights Rights Conflict resolution Cultural diversity Cultural heritage Freedom from forced assimilation Freedom from forced removal Freedom from racial discrimination Freedom of religion Gender equality Human rights Indigenous intellectual property Indigenous language Land rights Land-use planning Right to determine indigeneity Self-determination Traditional knowledge Governmental organizations Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Arctic Council Bureau of Indian Affairs Council of Indigenous Peoples Fundação Nacional do Índio National Commission for the Development of Indigenous Peoples National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (Philippines) United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Non-governmental and political organizations Amazon Watch Assembly of First Nations Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador Congress of Aboriginal Peoples Coordinator of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon River Basin Cultural Survival Friends of Peoples Close to Nature Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs National Indigenous Organization of Colombia Native American Rights Fund Survival International Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization Zapatista Army of National Liberation (more ...) Issues Bantustan / Indian reservation / Indian reserve / Ranchería Civilizing mission Colonialism Cultural genocide Manifest destiny Postdevelopment theory Settler colonialism Legal representation Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007 Historical cases 2009 Peruvian political crisis Chiapas conflict Depopulation of Diego Garcia High Arctic relocation Indian removal Mapuche conflict Oka Crisis Rubber boom San controversy Stolen Generations Category