Development, as many have come to know it, is synonymous with modernization and progress. In other words, to develop is to become more like the Western world. The idea of development is thought to be inextricably linked to what the world wants and needs; development is a necessary good for sustaining human life. In this essay I will first discuss what my previous understanding of development was. These ideas are widely shared throughout the world and more so by international development professionals, something I had long aspired to be. Next, I will discuss the creation and romanticization of development work before I delve into my newfound understanding of this field of work and how I see myself fitting into the world as a practitione
For the purpose of this essay, I will
be using several terms interchangeably. The West includes those societies
deemed economically developed, such as Europe, the United States, Canada,
Australia, New Zealand and South Africa among others. These are developed
nations considered the global north and the first world, while the global south
includes regions deemed “economically backward” like Asia, Latin America and
Africa. This group of countries is also known as the underdeveloped,
non-westerns and the Third World or the Majority World, defined by what they
are rather than what they lack.
While growing up, I was often
confronted by television ads of seemingly helpless and hungry victims of
poverty unfailingly from Asia and Africa. For just pennies a day one could
“save” these impoverished beings. This molded my perception of the Third World,
a perception that I would later find to be a complete and utter delusion. Soon
I was well underway in my undergraduate career studying International Studies
with the objective of landing a job as a professional development worker in
Sub-Saharan Africa.
It was during this time period that I
learned what it meant to develop, including the various methods used to do so.
To develop is to adopt a democratic and capitalist society. Progress is
building modern roads leading to modern cities that are host to Westernized
hospitals and universities. Growth is industrialization. All of these things
and more will lead to a more developed society, which is what everyone aspires
for, who wouldn’t want development? The more I studied, the more I
learned the benefits of helping the underdeveloped develop. By helping a
country to develop, they will have a lower infant mortality rate, people become
educated (we undoubtedly know this is beneficial to all civilization),
new access to Western health care will save millions of lives, and adopting
Western agricultural practices will lead to a more nourished, healthier and
more productive population.
From the start, I had always critiqued
methods such as the Washington Consensus, sweeping solutions like the
Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs), and international actors such as the
World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). These methods to me were
obviously an extension of colonialism and further pushed the people deeper into
poverty while benefiting the rich. SAPs, which started in the late 1970’s, have
had an undeniable negative effect on the very countries they originally sought
out to help. These programs were a type of “tied aid”, meaning that the
borrowing countries were required to put into practice several economic
policies in order to get a loan from the World Bank or the IMF. As a
result of such “aid”, the wealth gap widened due to exploitation of recipient
countries. Often times these program encourage Transnational Corporations
(TNCs) to move into said countries to take advantage of cheap labor and lax
laws (Slusser, 2006).
During my undergrad education, I was
reading books and blogs of “famous” development professionals such as Jeffrey
Sachs and William Easterly, educating myself on the best way to “develop” poor
countries. As mentioned before, these professionals and many others believed
that development was growth, and primarily, economic growth. I was schooled on
the various theories of development, such as modernization and structuralism.
“Modern economic growth was not only a question of ‘more’ (output per person)
but also ‘change’” (Sachs, 2005, p. 38). This particular recipe for change had
several ingredients: changing gender roles, mandatory and free education,
urbanization, and eradication of traditional beliefs and methods, among many
other things.
Since obtaining my bachelor’s degree in 2012, I’ve had the opportunity to work
abroad in Cameroon for 16 months and have continued to ponder my role in the
world as a development worker. Here at SIT Graduate Institute, I have
been able to view the aforementioned theories of development through an
entirely new lens, leading me to a better understanding of the world and my
role as a practitioner. For several decades, the white man has been dictating
the lives of minorities all around the world. First, this came in the form of
colonization as several groups of people were conquered and deemed as savage,
barbaric, and backwards. This gave the white man leverage to pillage and steal
resources from countries they were attempting to “develop” for their own
economic benefit. As colonization became outdated and regarded as wrong, even
in the eyes of Westerners, the white man needed to keep his control of the
so-called uncivilized populations for his own prosperity (Escobar, 1997).
This is when the social construct of
poverty and “underdeveloped” began to take flight. Those lacking a capitalist
society revolving around material possessions were regarded as underdeveloped.
As stated by Escobar (1997), “Development proceeded by creating ‘abnormalities’
(such as the ‘illiterate’, the ‘underdeveloped’, the ‘malnourished’, ‘small
farmer’, or ‘landless peasant’) which it would later treat and reform” (p. 88).
Groups of nomadic herders who carried everything they owned on their back were
seen as non-contributors to society in terms of the economy. These people are
what our Western first world society considers to be poor. This creation of the
underdeveloped by the white man was an opportunity to not only “help”, but to
control these populations whilst reaping endless socio-economic benefits from
destroying the livelihood and culture of these “poor” people. These ideas
continue to pervade the general consciousness of development work. They are the
reason why the West is still spewing their propaganda of “helping the poor
develop”, through their endless charity campaigns portraying poor African children
starving to death.
Today, I am aware that poverty is a
fabricated fallacy invented to dichotomize the “developed” and the
“underdeveloped”. This enabled development workers, mostly hailing from Europe,
America or Canada, to legitimize their work as the betterment of the poor
helpless people. “Growth is a collection of ‘things’; well-being is nothing
else but ‘well-having’”(Latouche, 1997, p. 139). The objective of development
is no longer about the quality of life of a person but more so the amount of
material possessions one has produced, purchased, and consumed.
What is hidden behind this simplified
definition and approach to “development” that many give credence to, is that if
it were actually successful, it would inevitably lead to more waste, more
pollution, and more environmental degradation. Our Earth does not have the
capacity to function and provide for humans if all countries are living like
Westerners. By acknowledging this, it is evident that we must begin to research
and apply other theories of development. We, those who aspire to work in the
field of “development”, need to challenge the status quo and challenge the
traditional ideology of development. We need to challenge the system in the
same way that “Ivan Illich set out to challenge the very idea of development as
a threat to people’s autonomy” (Rahnema, 1997, p. ix) in the 1960s. Although
working in Africa, particularly West Africa, as a practitioner is still a
career goal of mine, I have become much more critical of my role as a development
professional, and what it truly means to develop.
Clearly, more research needs to be done
on alternatives to current prepackaged solutions such as SAPs. Some researchers
have suggested that we must end the idea of “think globally; act locally”, because
it we need to acknowledge that people “can only think wisely about what
they actually know well” (Estava, G. et al, 1997, p. 279). If development
workers continue to implement their own global perspective, they consciously or
unconsciously assume that they know what is best and therefore maintain the
vision and interests of a very small group of people. However, if things
are local and initiated inside the community, they will reflect what Esteva and
Parakash (1997) call “radical pluralism” which expresses the unique ideas
conceived by communities rooted in specific places.
To do this, we need to look around our
own environment and work with what and who we know. I find this challenging
because I am realizing that like many others, I have romanticized the idea of
living and working abroad and am having a hard time letting go of that dream.
This is not to say that one cannot be informed on global issues and causes. On
the contrary, we should be aware of our position and ability to share knowledge
as well as stand in solidarity with localized movements. As Pam Simmons (1997)
suggests, “Perhaps the best efforts of women in the developed world should be
put into resisting the spread of Western-style patriarchy and fighting its
source closer to home” (p. 252). This suggests that instead of going abroad to
do “development work”, I should be working in my own country, in the
environment that I am familiar with and a part of.
Another way to move into the
post-development phase as a practitioner is to abandon development approaches
that are not grassroots movements, those which work with the marginalized
groups of people who are written off by organized politics and current
development projects. In a sense, grassroots strategies take out the middleman
and work directly with communities. The overall and long-term goal is to
develop a new and holistic approach to development; on that goes beyond
neo-classical economics and industrialization (Sheth, 1997, p. 335).
Woven throughout all of these methods
of overcoming traditional development practices is the idea of an inclusive
society; one that affirms all human beings are uniquely gifted. As noted
earlier, traditional development values the consumption of material goods. The
key in combating this is to appreciate the sheer presence of each individual
human, their uniqueness and whatever ordinary and/or extraordinary gifts they
bring. In doing so, we as practitioners also need to respect all peoples’
subjectivity so they will be seen as active contributing members of the society
and the world that they live in as opposed to passive and incapable beings.
It is key to my development as a
practitioner to remain critical and vigil when working towards social justice
and all realms of life. This is why I must be constantly evolving as a
professional in the field and question my role in each and every position I
hold or aspire to hold. Some strategies of application for myself in the future
include: keeping the grassroots level in sight, working holistically and intuitively
while always making sure that I am being inclusive. There are several local
movements throughout the United States that I can become a part of or I can
support others abroad. If I choose the latter, I must remember to remain local
and not make the movement my own but instead act as an ally. Regardless of
where I find myself working, one thing will remain constant at the core of my
work my aspiration to serve others. Throughout all of this, I hope to become a
researcher in the post-development field and possibly even a professor who will
guide others along their way.
Works Cited
Escobar,
Arturo. (1997). The Making and Unmaking of the Third World Through
Development. In Rahnema, M. with
Bawtree, V. (Eds), The Post-Development Reader
(85-93). New York: Zed Books Ltd.
Esteva,
Gustavo and Parakash, Madhu Suri. (1997). From Global Thinking to Local
Thinking. In Rahnema, M. with Bawtree,
V. (Eds), The Post-Development Reader
(277-289). New York: Zed Books Ltd.
Illich,
Ivan. (1997) Development as Planned Poverty. In Rahnema, M. with Bawtree, V.
(Eds), The Post-Development Reader
(94-101). New York: Zed Books Ltd.
Latouche,
Serge. (1997). Paradoxical Growth. In Rahnema, M. with Bawtree, V. (Eds), The
Post-Development Reader (135-142). New York: Zed Books Ltd.
Sachs,
Jeffery. (2005). The End of Poverty. England: Penguin Books Ltd.
Sheth,
D.L. (2007). Alternatives from an Indian Grassroots Perspective. In Rahnema, M.
with Bawtree, V. (Eds), The
Post-Development Reader (329-335). New York: Zed
Books Ltd.
Simmons,
Pam. (1997). ‘Women in Development’: A Threat to Liberation. In Rahnema, M.
with Bawtree, V. (Eds), The
Post-Development Reader (244-255). New York: Zed
Books Ltd.
Slusser,
S. R. (2006). The World Bank, Structural Adjustment Programs And Developing
Countries: A Review Using Resource
Dependency Theory. Conference Papers -- American Sociological Association,
1.
