The whole ethos of participatory programs is to empower communities to pursue the livelihood strategies they desire in sustainable ways, with researchers and agencies working as partners to help build strong grassroots institutions. Economic growth for its own sake is not the goal of these programs. Is there any way to re-frame the development debate to be more supportive of community-based, participatory approaches?
Can Anthropologists help re-frame the development debate?
My Illustrating Vignette: "This morning I went on a tour of Nnindye with our site supervisor, and I learned a little about what I'll be doing this summer. Well, it's pretty much changed my idea of what I'll be doing this summer. I guess when I was coming over here, the words 'development program' carried certain connotations of big, capital-intensive, noticeable, earth shattering operations that were lifting people out of poverty. Today, Apollo just drove around and.....talked to people. Everybody smiled and conversed. It was a pretty happy affair. This 'development program' seems mostly about forming relationships with the people of Nnindye, and listening to make their lives better in small, every day sorts of ways. The organizers of this program can't be worried about making earth-shattering changes that are going to revamp the local economy or turn it into a booming place of industry. 'Development' here is not about making life more 'modernized' from a western conception. It's about making small improvements to traditional, sustainable livelihoods."
Development as a Buzzword
Since the middle of the 20th century, “development” has been thrown around as a buzzword that, although vaguely defined and understood, is geared toward reducing poverty around the globe. Therefore, in Rist's words “any measure – foreign investment, lowering or raising of trade barriers, well-digging, literacy campaigns, and the like, was justified in the name of development, making even the most contradictory policies look as if they were geared to improving the lives of poor people...development was equated almost with life itself” (21).
Because of the positive connotations associated with the word, even if these projects failed (development is one of the world's most wasteful industries), they had the legitimacy of being part of a cause to alleviate human suffering. Development has become a near religion because it is aligned with conceptions of social justice, equality, and raising standards of living for all (21). In our most recent election, no candidate who criticized economic growth, or its proxy in the third world, development, would stand a serious chance, because such a candidate would be seen as being pro-poverty. More recently, “sustainable development” has come into the vogue as a way of shining up the concept of development. Sustainable development programs hope to have it all, generating economic growth in ways that don't adversely impact the environment.
Unsustainable Development?
Well, I'm of the belief that all of this “development” is leading our world down an unsustainable path. “Development” as currently conceived is not sustainable; the world cannot support billions more people living American-like lifestyles, consuming vast amounts of natural resources.
In a “developed country,” everything is for sale. Leisure cannot be enjoyed without payment. Nurseries look after children. Human beings are resources. To participate in a developed economy means, for 99% of the population, to sell your services for payment. Why? Will poverty ever disappear? Does this system justify the destruction of natural resources for future generations? We're quickly approaching a point, especially with global warming, where technological advances in food science will no longer be able to stay ahead of population growth (21). The word “development” has been used to justify the baptism of ancient cultures into a system that is not sustainable and will continue to produce more losers as the earth cannot support natural resource exploitation and increasing fossil fuel use.
In response, Rist suggests an alternative, more accurate definition of development
“The essence of development is the general transformation and destruction of the natural environment and of social relations in order to increase the production of commodities (goods and services) geared, by means of market exchange, to effective demand”
Aristotle as model for reconsidering Economics?
Aristotle's oikonomy meant originally “the art of living well, a use-value centered approach to the economic process” (Cruz et al. 2007). Commerce, or chrematistics, was subordinated to the holistic process by which human beings satisfy their needs. Modern economics, and the conception of development, are linked to the “chrematistic turn” wherein the art of making money became an end unto itself. In this system, the free-market delivers higher efficiencies for making money, and even development programs are growth-centered. Also speaking of the so-called "chrematistic turn," Polyani emphasized that only in modern capitalism is the “substantive” definition of economics, meaning the various ways of providing for human needs, embedded within the “formal” definition of economics, meaning rational decision-making in the marketplace (16). However, “this excludes the bulk of humanity from the discussions about how and where to orient development practices by leaving the appraisal and analysis of the functioning of the market to the specialists. (Cruz et al. 2007).”
Aren't there other ways to live?
Due to the chrematistic turn in western market capitalism, our entire lives revolve around driving economic growth. As the world is teetering on the brink of permanent damage, controlled by an economic theory that discounts the consumption of natural resources, should we throw up our hands at this doom, or take the impending catastrophe so seriously that it will eventually not happen?
Anthropologists can be most helpful in emphasizing, as Aristotle and Polyani did, that there are many ways of satisfying essential human needs outside of formal markets. This might sound hippyish, but I at least think it's what the world needs. We should release the word "development" from its inclusion in an unsustainable belief system. In other cultures, the economy might be based on kinship relations, or organized through religious institutions. An anthropologist, through close, local study of other cultures, can see that the way western culture does it – providing for all human needs through the marketplace – is not the only way!
Example of Multiple Ways to Satisfy Human Needs: The people of Nnindye satisfy the basic human need for food through a variety of non-market mechanisms I learned about through my research. One man I interviewed gave gifts to his neighbors in return for pig meat. As a Muslim, he said he could not kill pigs, but had worked out a sharing arrangement with neighbors that has been mutually beneficial. If an end goal is to increase a person's food security, can there be a paradigm shift within development discourse to emphasize other ways of providing for people's needs besides through liberalized markets? My immersion into Uganda makes me think that...gasp....this might not be such a bad idea.
Can Anthropologists help re-frame the development debate?
My Illustrating Vignette: "This morning I went on a tour of Nnindye with our site supervisor, and I learned a little about what I'll be doing this summer. Well, it's pretty much changed my idea of what I'll be doing this summer. I guess when I was coming over here, the words 'development program' carried certain connotations of big, capital-intensive, noticeable, earth shattering operations that were lifting people out of poverty. Today, Apollo just drove around and.....talked to people. Everybody smiled and conversed. It was a pretty happy affair. This 'development program' seems mostly about forming relationships with the people of Nnindye, and listening to make their lives better in small, every day sorts of ways. The organizers of this program can't be worried about making earth-shattering changes that are going to revamp the local economy or turn it into a booming place of industry. 'Development' here is not about making life more 'modernized' from a western conception. It's about making small improvements to traditional, sustainable livelihoods."
Development as a Buzzword
Since the middle of the 20th century, “development” has been thrown around as a buzzword that, although vaguely defined and understood, is geared toward reducing poverty around the globe. Therefore, in Rist's words “any measure – foreign investment, lowering or raising of trade barriers, well-digging, literacy campaigns, and the like, was justified in the name of development, making even the most contradictory policies look as if they were geared to improving the lives of poor people...development was equated almost with life itself” (21).
Because of the positive connotations associated with the word, even if these projects failed (development is one of the world's most wasteful industries), they had the legitimacy of being part of a cause to alleviate human suffering. Development has become a near religion because it is aligned with conceptions of social justice, equality, and raising standards of living for all (21). In our most recent election, no candidate who criticized economic growth, or its proxy in the third world, development, would stand a serious chance, because such a candidate would be seen as being pro-poverty. More recently, “sustainable development” has come into the vogue as a way of shining up the concept of development. Sustainable development programs hope to have it all, generating economic growth in ways that don't adversely impact the environment.
Unsustainable Development?
Well, I'm of the belief that all of this “development” is leading our world down an unsustainable path. “Development” as currently conceived is not sustainable; the world cannot support billions more people living American-like lifestyles, consuming vast amounts of natural resources.
In a “developed country,” everything is for sale. Leisure cannot be enjoyed without payment. Nurseries look after children. Human beings are resources. To participate in a developed economy means, for 99% of the population, to sell your services for payment. Why? Will poverty ever disappear? Does this system justify the destruction of natural resources for future generations? We're quickly approaching a point, especially with global warming, where technological advances in food science will no longer be able to stay ahead of population growth (21). The word “development” has been used to justify the baptism of ancient cultures into a system that is not sustainable and will continue to produce more losers as the earth cannot support natural resource exploitation and increasing fossil fuel use.
In response, Rist suggests an alternative, more accurate definition of development
“The essence of development is the general transformation and destruction of the natural environment and of social relations in order to increase the production of commodities (goods and services) geared, by means of market exchange, to effective demand”
Aristotle as model for reconsidering Economics?
Aristotle's oikonomy meant originally “the art of living well, a use-value centered approach to the economic process” (Cruz et al. 2007). Commerce, or chrematistics, was subordinated to the holistic process by which human beings satisfy their needs. Modern economics, and the conception of development, are linked to the “chrematistic turn” wherein the art of making money became an end unto itself. In this system, the free-market delivers higher efficiencies for making money, and even development programs are growth-centered. Also speaking of the so-called "chrematistic turn," Polyani emphasized that only in modern capitalism is the “substantive” definition of economics, meaning the various ways of providing for human needs, embedded within the “formal” definition of economics, meaning rational decision-making in the marketplace (16). However, “this excludes the bulk of humanity from the discussions about how and where to orient development practices by leaving the appraisal and analysis of the functioning of the market to the specialists. (Cruz et al. 2007).”
Aren't there other ways to live?
Due to the chrematistic turn in western market capitalism, our entire lives revolve around driving economic growth. As the world is teetering on the brink of permanent damage, controlled by an economic theory that discounts the consumption of natural resources, should we throw up our hands at this doom, or take the impending catastrophe so seriously that it will eventually not happen?
Anthropologists can be most helpful in emphasizing, as Aristotle and Polyani did, that there are many ways of satisfying essential human needs outside of formal markets. This might sound hippyish, but I at least think it's what the world needs. We should release the word "development" from its inclusion in an unsustainable belief system. In other cultures, the economy might be based on kinship relations, or organized through religious institutions. An anthropologist, through close, local study of other cultures, can see that the way western culture does it – providing for all human needs through the marketplace – is not the only way!
Example of Multiple Ways to Satisfy Human Needs: The people of Nnindye satisfy the basic human need for food through a variety of non-market mechanisms I learned about through my research. One man I interviewed gave gifts to his neighbors in return for pig meat. As a Muslim, he said he could not kill pigs, but had worked out a sharing arrangement with neighbors that has been mutually beneficial. If an end goal is to increase a person's food security, can there be a paradigm shift within development discourse to emphasize other ways of providing for people's needs besides through liberalized markets? My immersion into Uganda makes me think that...gasp....this might not be such a bad idea.