The world has witnessed an ongoing transformation involving the various changes regarding development approaches and classification of communities. Interestingly, this diversification of the world has started with the end of the World War II. This remarkable point indicates the first definition of ‘underdeveloped’ for the first time in the history. In Gustavo Esteva’s article, it is pointed out that dated from 1949,the concept ‘underdeveloped’ commenced to take place in literature after the expression by Truman following the Second World War. Esteva: 6) This was a major turning point that the communities belong to so called undeveloped part of the world have been threatened by the US hegemony which has roots from the 1940s.
This is explained by Esteva that the initial step to be taken was to trap these communities into the feeling and perception of underdeveloped which paves the only way for opportunities to benefit the project of development. (Esteva : 7) In a nutshell, his main idea states that underdevelopment is one of the formations of the development project. Esteva : 11) The project of development has undergone some major changes through the evolutions in terms of economy, political power and other social issue. After the Second World War, the other milestone reshaping the system was the Cold War. The bipolar world contributed to the polarization of the other communities apart from the USSR and the US. Development commenced to be define by economic growth and increases in economic activities such as exportation and trade liberalization in the wake of the emergence of US hegemony at the end of the Cold War.
Further, these new elements of the development project of the world were enhanced through the emergence of globalization and universalism. These were the elements which mainly cultivated through the contributions of the Western World in terms of their institutions, their economic and political ideologies. This was the moment also to commence to make some certain judgments regarding the project of development and its basic tenets which led to the raise of the new approach called Post Development (PD) theory. PD has also some common roots and values in the fundamentals of Post-modernism as well.
These theories emerged during the 1980s and reached their climax during 1990s. However, since the rise of these theories, in the development agenda, some critiques and debates has come out in order to demonstrate not only their considerable contributions, but also their deficiencies. In order to shed light on these arguments, this essay would basically analyze their tenets and evaluate them from the critical perspective. This essay firstly would address the core elements of Post Development and Post-modernism under the titles of culture and argumentation regarding local vs. lobal. In the second part of the essay, the critique of these theories would be assessed.
The Fundamental Tenets of Post Development and Post-Modernist Theorists In the context of PD and Post-modernism, the first point should be stated that development is inherently problematic because of the fact that it represents the values and ideas of Western World through excluding primary needs and principals of the other parts of the world apart from the domination of Western World. This leads to the emergence of underdevelopment. Rist,1997 : 238) Accordingly, the basic problem related to development project has been the disregarding elements such as the prominence of culture and grassroots to resist this system and to define primary deficiencies of the myth of development. 1. The Culture and the Ethnography According to Post Development (PD) theorists, one of the disregarding elements within the development project has been the importance of culture. As the world has become globalized, the culture which is playing a crucial role in the construction of identities and communities, are fell behind the agenda of development.
PD theorists mainly advocate that development mostly depends upon the Eurocentric elements which represent a kind of cultural imperialism. (Kiely: 3) This leads to some problems that in a world which is oriented and shaped by Eurocentric or Western elements could be unable to have an understanding of a broader picture of the world including both the first and third worlds. According to PD theorists, development project is contradicting with itself.
Whereas the basic aim of it has been to reach regions all over the world and to promote prosperity and solutions regarding their economic, social and other problems, these goals could not be properly achieved. Further, the point is that PD claims that development has been unable to go beyond its borders due to solely dwelling on Western principals. Ray Kiely points out this argument of PD theorists that development has turned into an agenda as take for granted, yet, it should be monitored through the cultural principals and ethnographies of regions. Kiely:3 ) Additionally, the ethnographies and cultures are the most prominent indicators of the basic needs and levels of their development.
This is to say that those indicators reflect the evolution of societies, their norms and values, and especially their needs. However, the striking point is that these indicators should be properly analyzed in order to define the most suitable project in order to fulfill the gaps within the societies. James Ferguson states that main differences between regions and societies play crucial role to indicate the discrepancies in terms of their levels of development. Ferguson: 154) This sheds light on that societies are usually defined their own ethnographies which demonstrate their origins from the past accordingly their unique social systems. These all different social systems require different approaches regarding development. The crucial point is that PD theorists usually define that the culture, changes in terms of social issues and societal systems, and anthropology are inseparable actors of development which are all interconnected to each other.
The intrinsic beyond that is the more prominent the agenda of hegemony becomes, the greater ‘localized’ people and their cultures occupy a role in the agenda of development. (Ferguson:157) Anthropology is believed that it could pave the way for unique forms of projects regarding to development. In addition to that, they should be properly and separately engaged with the ethnographies and anthropologies. These projects play an important role in order to put emphasis on local roots and their resistance against the power of the hegemony.
PD theorists mainly are the supporters of cultural relativism. They have the position supporting limited universalism as well. Conversely, this relativism is not intrinsically associated with universal issues and problems which are dealt with PD theorists as well. Whereas they aim to search for local solutions, they neglect the universality of problems. Although, mainly the issues are defined locally in terms of unique ethnographies, it should be noticed that these local problems have commenced to be universal issues concerning the various parts of the world.
Thusly, it could be stated that it is contradictory to limit the scope of the universal problems concerning the majority of the world within the borders of localism. Hence, the importance given to culture could hinder and narrow the perspective of PD theorists. 2. Local vs. Global and the South vs. the North The discussion about the importance of culture, ethnography and anthropology brings another significant point which is the argument in terms of local vs. lobal / North vs. the South. One of the fundamental points of Post Development theory is to put emphasis on the prominence of the impact of local sphere in the agenda of development. The local is the sphere in which the both the society and its values are described in the frames of their own understanding. The majority of countries have started to seek for approaches incorporating both global and local elements not neglecting the so called underdeveloped part of the world.
Arturo Escobar draws attention that emphasizing the importance of local ethnographies in consideration of hybridization within the local levels through cultural differences play significant role in the deconstruction of development (Escobar:223) It could be pointed out that PD theorists primarily aim to bridge the gap between the global and local spheres through flourishing the roots and some certain perspectives of the local parts. Further, it is believed that by PD theorists the global project of development could be enhanced via the links deriving from the local level.
According to Stacy Leigh Pigg, it is emphasized that the local roots of culture are perceived as static and stable, whereas development reaches these roots through bringing new ideas and practices. In parallel with it, the basic solution is to establish mediators between the framework of development and local cultures. (Pigg:265) According to point mentioned above, it might be useful to explain one of the main mediators which could be the provision of technological facilities which are essential components of development projects.
However, the point is that the technological innovations are believed to be the creations of the Western world which favour their hegemonic power all over the world. That’s why there is a profound opposition to benefit from the technological facilities in order to prevent the enhancement of dominancy of the Western part over the third world. In the point of view of post development thinking, the technology which is the part of reason and science has been perceived as the mere constructions of Western world. (Kiely: 9) In addition to this statement, it could be stated that the growing technology and its advances have become polarized.
This implies that the technology is divided into two parts; South and North, the region has suffered to get opportunities in order to benefit from these advances, and the region has utterly caught opportunities to access to these advances, respectively. This has been one of the primary argumentations of Post development theory which basically criticizes the dominant Western characteristics and definitions regarding technology and its components. However, this is the point that their critique also is worth to criticize.
That is to say that the attitude of post development theorists could be mainly restricted and undertaken through simplistic terms. This restricted and simplistic attitude addresses that all objectives of development have appeared as the main instruments of Western world. Yet this is a highly debatable point. Because of the fact that the project of development tends to bring together both indigenous aspects and technical levels in order to promote the best conditions to all societies without noticing their regions, therefore, this point has been still debated.
Hence, the point is that basically development should aim to put emphasis on to stimulate convergence rather than divergence of societies. In order to explain further the points mentioned above, it is worth to address the approach of post modernism in terms of issues related to local and global relationships. Their starting point in order to demonstrate their point of view regarding development has been to critically assess the notion defined by Rene Dubos; “Think globally, act locally. This idea brings that the constant global thinking and its components should rely upon some local roots. This basically purports that global institutions which are inseparable instruments of global thinking interestingly tend to exist and take actions at local levels which are believed the most appropriate level in order to easily reach to people and fulfill their demands. In the book of Esteva and Prakash (TARIH: 25), it is assessed that the majority of the goliath institutions for instance World Bank and Coca Cola have to locate transnational actions into local levels.
Otherwise, they would not be able manage to exist anymore. In respect of development agenda, this brings a critical point that global and local spheres are substantially interconnected to each other through complementing with each other on a middle ground. This has been one of the essential contributions of post modernism as well as post development theorists in order to widen and reorient the scope of global thinking by highlighting the prominence of local roots and their components. The other point highlighted y post-modernist theorists is their emphasis on the oxymoron characteristic of global thinking. (Esteva and Prakash: 32) Basically, the notion proposing that global thinking requires local actions could be considerable elements in order to define its oxymoron characteristic which means that it is inherently contradictory.
Additionally, to explain further this point; “Acquiescence to the assumption that ‘global forces’ have the power only serves to clothe their nakedness , thereby supporting them, feeding and strengthening theme. (Esteva and Prakash : 31) This implies that on the one hand, global thinking aims to enhance its activities through focusing on the local roots. On the other hand, the unnoticed point within this global thinking is that they play a role as a catalyst in augmenting the activities and actions of the local level rather than the global level. This also could be a huge challenge for the global thinking and its development.
This is a considerable point is that as a result of local initiatives of global institutions; communities and institutions at the local level commenced to be self-enclosed. This poses a threat for whole international level activities. The intrinsic beyond is that the belief gained ground upon localism proposing that high levels of prosperity and efficiency could be achieved in terms of such as health, agriculture and sustainable development could potentially challenge fundamentals of international and all other global initiatives.
Local thinking and local actions started to receive prominence such as in the sense of agriculture which is a crucial element of development. To illustrate, the Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) is a partnership between members of local communities and framers in order to achieve sustainable farming which benefits the lands the food of the local community is grown. http://www. soilassociation. rg/communitysupportedagriculture/whatiscsa According to this example, post-modernist theorists draw attention to the point that obviously, in some cases goliath is under the growing threat posed by cooperation and collaborative works of local actors in terms of their initiatives.
As an example, Esteva and Prakash addresses that even though the motives beyond Earth Summit which is an essential conference held by UN regarding sustainable development are mainly related to global thinking, the actors involved in these summits have been the local actors. Esteva and Prakash : 33) Basically, these examples would be fruitful to demonstrate the oxymoron characteristic of global thinking regarding development agenda. The Critique of Assessments of Post Development and Post-Modernist Theorists To begin with, the assessments of PD theorists in terms of importance of culture highlighted some critical points that the culture and ethnographies should be considered as inseparable components of the development agenda.
The main concern was to raise the people as core actors within the community rather than separately conceiving them apart from the society. In addition to that point, through the given worth to the people, according to post-modernist understanding it could be achieved that locals (people) could manage to be dominant figures by ruling and defining their own values rather than the elements defined by Eurocentric principals.
In this understanding, also people are at the grassroots are encouraged to resist against the ongoing system relying upon global thinking, capitalism, and Western fundamentals. However, even though these assessments could be figured out as a catalyst for people to think beyond the borders of the myth of development, the striking point is that their claims do not base on a reasonable ground which are precisely convincing. Thusly, these assessments resemble an echo the ‘myth of development’ rather than leaving it behind. Pietersen, 24) Yet, one of the vital points is that the assessment of post development should be grounded on the main development discourse which is the autonomic figure. (Kiely: 18) This is a considerable point because their main failure derives from their unconvincing assessments through taking bases as conventional elements of development such as economic growth, prosperity and alleviation of poverty. Post development and post-modernist theorists have not been able to realize the impossibilities of stepping out of the development.
Notwithstanding these unnoticed points, in the context of Post Development and Post-modernist contributors, Escobar articulates a crucial point addressing that development is a discourse which neglects other alternatives, it is also fragmented to contribute practices in the Third World. (Escobar in Kiely: 3)This also implies that the discourse of development is automatically referred to the Western World or the Northern part which is believed as the only dominant figure in this discourse.
However, this point has an impact widening the gap between the North and South rather than filling the substantial vacuums between these two regions. In order to support this point, it would be worth to note that Post Development theory inevitably tends to impose a binary divide between first and third worlds. (Kiely:8 ) This means that in this regard PD and Post-modernism are theories which are contradicting themselves. Another point articulated by Escobar is that the development project is seen as a failed project especially regarding initiatives Latin America, Asia and Africa rather than an unfinished project as Habermas describes. Kiely:4) In order to criticize the huge agenda of development, this requires that this criticism should rely upon a comprehensive level of understanding rather than a narrow point of view which solely based on some particular regions and initiatives that are undertaken in those regions. Corbridge (8) highlights that; “Development is about dilemmas, and its shortcomings of development should not be read as the Failure of development”. Failure is a word which carries a huge and serious meaning which means development lacks of success.
The way Arturo Escobar defines development could be observed in a biased manner rather a neutral position, because some particular accomplishments of development are forgotten. The point is that they mainly deal with the pessimist side of the development which would not be helpful to bring a comprehensive and impartial understanding of the development. In addition to the points mentioned above, post development and post-modernist theorists have attempted to present new and alternative development which is fizzled out.
In that vein, the point is that their understanding does not solely perceive development as a solution. In addition to that, it is not possible to articulate that they have been successful in promoting their claims which are supposed to present alternative methods. This has been one of the core weaknesses that they do not offer any solutions or alternative projects regarding development. For this reason, they remain limited by only rejecting the myth of development. One of the underlying reasons is that PD theories do not base on a concrete ground.
Its abstractness has been a serious problem in terms of their inabilities to reach to success about offering alternative development. Corbridge (:6) states that their failures of convincing derive from their increasingly focus on assertions and dogmas rather than a decent argumentation. It could be stated that both post development and post-modernism theories lack of the ability to transform their argumentations into an explicit creation. Accordingly, Pietersen (:6) articulates that; “This approach is pretentious because it suggests more han it can deliver unclear because the difference between what is alternative and what is not clarified, and fuzzy to the point of hypocrisy because it sustains the overall rhetoric of development while suggesting the ability to generate something really different within its general aura. ”
The other point worth-mentioning is the major ambiguities and inconsistencies of PD and post-modernism thusly which causes its resemblance with dependency theory. Due to the fact that PD still continues to take neo colonialism and underdevelopment discussions as core subjects in its agenda in the same way as dependency theory interprets. Kiely: 5) Especially, assessments by Escobar and Ferguson as mentioned above are highly baseless and inconsistent. Their main focus was on West and the Rest argument which is not primarily fruitful. Also, Corbridge(8) expresses that post development mainly poses a threat against people by locking out of people the discussion regarding some particular issues such as economy, widening their pretentious promise to provide them a new life at the local level without contradictions. This implies that they avoid people to engage with the rules and value defined by global or Western actors.
That’s why not surprisingly, their notions mostly echo with the ideas in the context of dependency theory. One of the leading reasons is that in general sense PD interprets the North as evil, whereas they perceive the South as noble. ( p13. 21. cit. in Kiely) Additionally, their critique about modernism and global thinking are controversial points which leads growing ambiguities between these theories. Therefore, the distinction should be clarified between dependency theory and post development/ post-modernism theories.
In addition, one of their main arguments has been to seek for an epistemological turn. (Rist : 244) This would be accomplished through offering an explicit alternative instead of rejecting the myth of development through abstract dogmas. Conclusion In conclusion, even though to some extent they have been successful to shed light on cultural and ethnographic roots, this relativism does not sufficiently serve any other alternatives rather than merely reacting against the universalism.
As Jan Pietersen mentions that development framework is described in a simplistic perspective as a single framework which mainly has a homogenous character underestimating its complicated character involving heterogeneous and diverse dimensions. (Pietersen:5) This implies that post development theorists and post-modernists mainly neglects the depths and heterogeneous elements and components which constitute precisely development framework by going beyond the debates about culture and ethnographies.
Some particular assessments of post-modernism accomplished to bring some critical perspectives within the global thinking agenda by highlighting the prominence of local actions and local thinking. However, their assessments are still vague involving various ambiguities. Further, their arguments also require to be separated from the arguments of dependency theory. Besides, their positive contributions in terms of culture and local thinking, they would not sufficiently bring a consistent and a comprehensive framework which involves alternatives or reasonable argumentations regarding development.
