Chapter 5 Review Questions Answer Key

Post-Development and Alternatives to Development
  1. A discourse is a group of statements that provide a language for talking about—i.e., a way of representing—a particular kind of knowledge about a topic. When statements about a topic are made within a particular discourse, the discourse makes it possible to construct the topic within a certain way. It also limits the other ways in which the topic can be constructed. A discourse can be produced by many individuals in different institutional settings (like families, prisons, hospitals, and asylums). Its integrity or “coherence” does not depend on whether it issues from one place or from a single speaker or “subject.” Nevertheless, every discourse constructs positions from which alone it makes sense. Anyone deploying a discourse must position themselves as if they were the subject of the discourse. For example, we may not ourselves believe in the natural superiority of the West. But, if we use the discourse of “the West and the Rest,” we will necessarily find ourselves speaking from a position that holds that the West is a superior civilization. [p. 79]
  1. Post-development thought emerged as a reaction to Eurocentrism. Hegemonic development theory often assumes that the experience of Western Europe is the normal, or logical, trajectory for all development experiences. This Eurocentric approach completely ignores the specific histories and experiences of nations and overlooks the role colonization played in Europe’s development. Post-development scholars such as Escobar argue that critiques of traditional development theory (including dependency theory and Marxism) are still grounded in European experience and thus fail to offer a sufficiently radical re-imagination of what development could or should look like elsewhere in the world. [pp. 83, 87, 90]
  1. Critics point out that production leading to environmental pollution (e.g., an oil spill) or other destructive results (e.g., guns and bombs) boost GDP twice: first through the production of negative goods and services and second through goods and services that try to negate the damage caused by this production. Abstaining from destructive production does not boost the GDP; thus, destruction of nature appears as wealth creation. Goods lasting for decades contribute to the GDP, but goods breaking down quickly, needing fixing or replacing, do so much more. Other criticisms include that the informal sector and unpaid labour (especially by women) are not measured and that distribution is entirely ignored. [p. 82]
  1. Escobar argues that the critics were right. But, he notes that they “fail to acknowledge . . . that their own project of analyzing the contestation of development on the ground was in great part made possible by the deconstruction of development discourse.” Post-development’s project had been to “slay the development monster”—that is, to break the consensus about “development” being necessary, self-evident, positive, and unquestionable and thus pave the way for more nuanced analyses. [p. 89]
  1. A frequent critique is that post-development romanticizes the grassroots movements and local communities in the South in two respects: On the one hand, it neglects relations of domination and exploitation within these movements and communities, in particular (but not exclusively) of women. On the other hand, it assumes that the people in these communities were not interested in accumulation and Westernization—projecting the romantic image of the “noble savage” onto them. [p. 88]
  1. Post-development overlooks the negative features of traditional subsistence societies; it ignores the huge achievements of modernity and “development.” It is also argued that that the progress achieved in terms of significant improvement in life expectancy, for example, is based precisely on what post-development criticizes: the diffusion of Western models of society across the globe, including science and the growth of productivity. Therefore, to simply declare the “failure” of the “development project” was entirely inappropriate. [p. 88]
  1. Instead of looking at differences and discontinuities, post-development authors constructed a monolithic development discourse impervious to more nuanced constellations. In addition, the high value attributed to tradition and cultural identity leads to cultural relativism—to the belief that cultures exist separately and no culture can be judged from the outside. This would allow elites in the South to glorify the defence of their traditional privileges against modern claims and practices as an act of anti-imperialism, sidelining political and economic conflicts within the country by pointing at alleged cultural conflicts and blaming the West. [p. 89]
  1. Various social movements have been referred to by post-development authors, such as the Chipko movement of Indian women struggling against the destruction of forest ecosystems (Shiva 1989) and the Process of Black Communities in Colombia defending their way of life, their territory, and their identity against capitalist corporations and socialist guerrillas alike (Escobar 2008). Yet the social movement cited most often as an alternative to development is probably that of the Mexican Zapatistas. The concept of buen vivir, rooted in Andean Indigenous cosmology, has become famous during the past decade, in particular after it was adopted by the governments of Ecuador and Bolivia. In many African societies, the philosophy of Ubuntu, which stresses the interconnectedness of human beings, can also be seen as one of these concepts. In Iran, the concept of Gharbzadegi (“Occidentosis”) was popular during the 1970s, promoted by intellectuals like Ale-e Ahmad and Ali Shariati, and has become something like an implicit state doctrine after the Islamic Revolution in 1979. It reminds us that post-development concepts can also be abused—or simply used—by conservative forces. [p. 85]
  1. On 1 January 1994, an army of mostly Indigenous soldiers calling itself the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional, EZLN) occupied seven towns in the southeastern Mexican state of Chiapas and declared themselves to be insurgent and at war with the Mexican government. Demanding democracy, freedom, and justice, they claimed that violence was their last resort after a long history of discrimination and exclusion. After public pressure arising from sympathy with the insurgents and their demands had halted the ensuing military response by the government, the EZLN entered into negotiations that finally resulted in the San Andrés Accords (not adhered to by the government) and in an uneasy truce constantly threatened by low-intensity warfare. Yet the Zapatista insurgents have successfully upheld their autonomy from the Mexican government since then. During this period, they have captured the attention of a left-leaning public, not only with their eloquent and poetic communication but through their slogans manifesting a more modest and less self-assured revolutionary spirit (“A world of many worlds”; “questioning, we proceed”; “all for all, nothing for us”; “we don’t need to conquer the world. It is enough to remake it”; “we walk at the pace of the slowest”) they have been an inspiration for many groups active in the global protest movement since the 1990s. The principles guiding their autonomous municipalities resonate clearly with some of post-development’s characteristics. Esteva (2013) claims they have successfully “reclaimed their commons” and are living “according to their own ways” “outside the logic” of capitalism and the state and have managed to improve their living conditions “without receiving or accepting funds from the national government.” [pp. 85-6]
  1. There is no single concept of buen vivir, but many similar ideas expressed by different Indigenous communities gained prominence under this label in the early 2000s. Most notable among these are “sumak kawsay,” the Kichwa expression for “fullness of life” in a community, in Ecuador, and “suma qamaña,” a related Aymara concept, in Bolivia. Buen vivir denotes a good life, which can only take place in community with other persons and nature. The Indigenous cosmology, which includes a spiritual dimension and sees nature not as dead matter but as “mother earth” (pachamama) and a subject of rights, is of central importance. Concerning the paradigm of development, buen vivir can be seen as a replacement of the very idea of development, and stresses that it does not include the ideas of social evolution and an “underdevelopment” that has to be overcome. Further, the relationship to nature of buen vivir is entirely incompatible with the idea that nature has to be conquered and governed, which is at the root of Western science and in turn constitutes the foundation of development thinking. The growing influence of Indigenous movements in Ecuador and Bolivia has led to the incorporation of buen vivir into the constitutions of these two states in 2008 and 2009, respectively, as well as to the explicit recognition of the rights of nature (Ecuador) and the plurinationality of the state (Bolivia). However, there are heated controversies regarding the extent to which the concept is actually followed in everyday politics in both countries. [p. 87]

 

Back to top