An approach to development that focus’ on people as a consequence of

The exegesis done in chapters three (3.2) and four (4.1) suggests that texts are shaped and influenced by the social values of the time in which they originated. A sound understanding of the social values of biblical times helps the reader in placing the text in its proper context. Moreover the interpreter of the text can use this sound understanding of the social values of the text to draw parallels between his or her context and that of the text. He or she, in the light of the parallels drawn between the values of then and now, might want to use methods of interpretation to address the questions he or she comes with to the text. Therefore, as this study suggested, feminist hermeneutics can be used to address questions of inequality, oppression, liberation and transformation. Thus for example we saw in 4.2.1 that women and children were prominent amongst the vulnerable in the ancient Mediterranean world, due to the social values of that specific context. If one is to analyse and draw

parallels between the Mediterranean and a context like impoverished communities in South-Africa, one would still find women and children as the most vulnerable in society.

Analysis and parallels should however not be the end of the process of

interpretation. The parallels between different contexts and time should only serve as the basis, and one might say to affirm the biblical imperative of sound Christian values. However as indicated in chapters two, not all values were good or even Christian, therefore the critique thereof in chapters three and four.

A modern reader of the text can thus evaluate his or her own context in similar fashion and identify the social values that exploit and leaves vulnerable certain groups of people. The latter parts of chapters three and four argued for a

transformative approach to biblical texts by using feminist hermeneutical lenses when reading the texts. At this stage of the interpretation process (after identifying social values both in the text and contemporary context, and seeking transformative ways of embodying biblical texts) we need to put into practice endeavours that can bring about transformation. What follows now is an exposition of development as a

possible tool of transformation and potential effect of reading and interpreting biblical texts through the lenses of a social-scientific approach and feminist hermeneutics:

Developments have had a complex history over the past 50 years (Kothari and Minogue 2001: 7) and some scholars like Uma Kothari and Martin Minogue assert that post World War II development has been a failure (Kothari and Minogue 2001: 2-3). One needs not to be as pessimistic as the mentioned scholars as there is to some extent elements of good offspring of development theories of the past, thus for example modernization brought the world technological advantages to such an extent that communication for both developed and underdeveloped countries have become easier. Furthermore as Ismail Davids points out that the theoretical

approaches to development did not necessarily follow in sequence and that they sometimes overlap and “new” theories do not necessarily imply the relegation of existing development theories (Davids 2005:3) one can therefore argue that development made good contributions to life in general in the past 50 years.

However a critical perspective on development and the different theories show that some discrepancies do exists in its fabric. Thus for example Wayne Bragg has identified the main flaws of the assumption of theories like: Modernism, Dependency and Underdevelopment, Global Reformism and Another Development and he

suggests a transformational approach rather than development (Bragg 1987: 23-47).

Maybe the rationale for these discrepancies rests on the understanding and framework for development and its definitions.

“A good question in response to the above title [Linking Social Analysis With Curriculum Development: Insights From Paulo Freire] would be, are there or has there ever been any clear-cut parameters to the field of curriculum theory and development? A brief historical review of the curriculum field clearly reveals a multitude of perspectives and definitions” (Butkus 1989: 568).

Kothari and Minogue point out that Development is interdisciplinary social-science (economics, politics, sociology, anthropology, history [and may I add theology]) with the emphasis on theory full of paradoxes and that the agenda for development underwent serious changes in the last few years (Kothori and Minogue 2001: 1). It seems that these theoretical approaches have always been top-down orientated,

defining development from theoretical and macro-strategies forgetting that

development is actually about people. Davids helps us to understand this concept by stating that development should first of all be for people and secondly by people (Davids 2005: 17) or what Stan Burkey (1996) in his book People First calls Development from Below. This notion of development being for and by people is analogous to the concept of a hermeneutic of remembrance which aims at the elimination of prevalent dominant groups which exploits other groups 3.3.1. A top down approach to development would form part of oppressive structures (like male dominant structures) and needs to bechallenged (as showed in 4.2.1)

Burkey counters the notion that development cannot only take place from top-down. Burkey furthermore highlights the idea that rural people are affected by national and international policies over which they have no control or no say in but this does not mean that development cannot take place from micro levels like townships and villages (Burkey 1996:35). This notion caught on in the late 1980’s which saw a shift from macro-level theoretical approaches to focuses on people and community which eventually resulted in People Centered Development. Advocates of this approach, defines people centered development as follows:

“… a process by which the members of a society increase their personal and

institutional capacities to mobilize and manage resources to produce sustainable and justly distributed improvements in their quality of life consistent with their own

aspirations.” (Korten 1990: 76).

Burkey sees development in the light of this process as an process which gradually evolve over time due to the fact that “All people live within some form of social framework consisting of social, economic and political structures…[furthermore] Development will necessarily involve the use of physical, financial and human resources” (Burkey 1996:35). But where do you begin with this process?