Chapter 2 Education and development: An interdependent relationship
2.4 Hopeful post-development
Ziai (2015) contends that while development has negatively impacted on many people and cultures in the Global South, elements of it do actually work. Therefore early post-
development’s “unconditional rejection of modernity and ‘development’” (Ziai, 2015, p. 835) should now be superseded by new lines of post-development thinking. By taking a positive stance, early post-development critique can be viewed as a starting point for the transformation of development (Nustad, 2007). Early post-development has acted as a catalyst to move beyond ‘modernisation as development’, with its total focus on a “monoculture of knowledge, linear time13, classification14, the universal and global, and
finally capitalist productivity and efficiency” (Gibson-Graham, 2007, pp. 145-146), to consider other development imaginings.
Crucially Bennett (2012) believes post-development has smoothed the way for an “epistemological break with western notions of development and progress” (p. 984). Development thinking is now ready to move “beyond modernity” (Escobar, 2007, p. 29) to a space where multiple development trajectories and states can be imagined.
13 In relation to the belief, that development progresses from underdevelopment to modern or developed
(Rist, 2002).
Escobar (2015) describes this place as the pluriverse, which is a “‘world where many worlds fit’” (p. 460). He believes post-development is involved in a transition discourse where previously globalisation was viewed as the “universalization of modernity to a view of globality as the struggle to preserve and foster the pluriverse” (ibid, p. 460).
This does not mean aspects of a top down modernisation as development focussed on improving economic growth through neoliberal, capitalist and state run development initiatives have been completely abandoned but are now only one of many development modes operating in the pluriverse. As Ziai (2015) reminds us operationally “ODA is still flowing, and the desire for a Western middle-class lifestyle is still predominant in most of the world” (p. 849). As Marglin (1990) points out:
Whatever one’s reservations may be about the necessity or utility of radios, televisions, motorcycles, and the like, the division between the necessary, the merely useful, and the wastefully luxurious is not ours to make; it is not our place to argue the virtues of simplicity and abstinence to those for whom material abundance is a distant dream’ (p. 27).
Janzen (2008) carrying out an ethnographic study of the Agabagaya Women’s group in rural Uganda15, found, subject to some stipulations, the women welcomed externally
financed development and education initiatives as the “discourse of development was embedded within the women’s own discourse” (p. 25). The provisos were the women controlled the development direction, and the setting of outcomes, holding the power of veto to any unwanted development activity. Moreover operationally there had to be a “true collaboration where relationships are reciprocal” (p. 28).
In a practical sense Cavalcanti (2007) sees traditional communities, in the Global South, as responding to external development pressures and the “imposition of external values” (p. 90) in one of three ways. Either total rejection if it does not fit with local values, culture and/or livelihoods; or alternatively the pragmatic acceptance of a destabilisation of traditional livelihoods and culture for the promise of a better life; or finally partial acceptance while actively resisting those parts that disrupt happy lives. Ultimately Cavalcanti believes, given multiple development options, people will base their decision making on the need for “development versus enjoyment of life” (p. 91).
What Cavalcanti is describing are post-development narratives they offer more hope. Those elements of a modernisation as development agenda that might destroy traditional culture can be rejected. However, Maiava and King (2007) believe elements of western development thinking and practice that supports indigenous led development ideals
underpinned by a new “epistemological orientation” (p. 83), can still be used. Development that supports the “agency of indigenous actors as active decision makers” (ibid, p. 87) is welcome. Curry, Koczberski and Connell (2012) describe the formation of these
“alternative modernities” (p. 122) as the ability to draw on “multiple processes and logics” (p. 115) from an eclectic mix of ‘indigenous and western’ and ‘local and global’ influences to create new localised development realities. Curry et al. (2012), using the Pacific as an example, believe people have mirrored hopeful post-development standpoints by seizing new development opportunities:
To expand their participation in development while at the same time striving to maintain place-based cultural beliefs, ideologies and moral domains that shape everyday decisions and practices. (p. 122)
They describe this interaction as an encounter to achieve a “compatible modernity” (p. 122).
Maiava and King (2007), extending this hopeful post-development narrative, draw on three contemporary livelihoods examples from the Pacific16 to describe a tripartite Pacific
development model. These three different development modes “articulate, interact and hybridise” (p. 85) to produce multiple development pathways that cannot be described by orthodox, universal development theory. The three development modes are intentional development, including both intentional economic growth and modernisation, and intentional socio-environmental amelioration17, immanent development18 and what they
16 Maiava and King (2007) describe three examples of indigenous culture interacting with the western
economy to produce what they term “alternative modernities” (p. 122). They are: The case of money being remitted from Pacific diaspora in western countries to their Pacific families living at home. The case of the cultivation and selling of yaqona (more commonly known as kava, scientific name Piper methysiticum) in the Sigatoka Valley in Fiji being variously affected by cultural obligations inherent in yaqona culture. The case of the impact of “traditional Samoan exchange ceremonies (fa’alavelave) within the context of cattle
production” (p. 91) in Samoa.
17 Environmental focussed development projects that aim to repair environmental damage caused by
term a previously hidden indigenous development. In this context indigenous development is “‘what people are doing anyway’ (however unconventional and unofficial)” (ibid, p. 96). After all problem solving occurring as part of traditional livelihoods, whether it be to improve fishing, planting, building or governance practices aimed at making lives better is still development. As Maiava and King conclude Pacific indigenous development is “beyond being people-centred, it is being people-led” (ibid, p. 96). Pacific indigenous development is driven by people simply doing what is best for themselves, their family and their community by drawing on their own culture and traditional livelihoods, western knowledge, technology and participating in the local, and often global, market place. Maiava and King (2007) outline five broad motivating factors that they believe drive indigenous development, those being:
The need to feel good about oneself, the need to belong and feel secure, the need to feel in control of one’s life, the need to be free, active and
independent, and the need to support one’s family. (p. 96)
These factors determine the amount of engagement with culture and external intentional development. People balance the material benefits of modernising development against the happiness engendered through culture, family and community. It is always a balancing act as the “the pursuit of material wealth also has significant human costs” (Dinerstein & Deneulin, 2012, p. 586). Dinerstein and Deneulin (2012) researching the Zapatistas in Mexico and an initiative called Live Simply in the UK, argue that hope movements striving for buen vivir19 or ‘good living’ are examples of new alternatives to development. For
indigenous peoples ‘buen vivir’ is found when the right balance of primary engagement with culture and secondary engagement with the global economy is struck.
Indigenous development operates in a number of spaces alongside western intentional development. At times it operates within the parameters of active development projects making use of the funding provided, alternatively it may run alongside such projects in a partnership model where IK and western knowledge are both used (Maiava & King, 2007). It can also operate autonomously, employing quite different notions of economy by
18 “Immanent development is what happens because of economic growth. It is the unconscious outworking
of capitalism, at the level beyond what was ever intended or thought about, whether that outcome is positive or negative” (Maiava & King, 2007, p. 85) .
focussing more on non-market transactions, unpaid labour and sociocultural relations (Gibson-Graham, 2007). Indigenous development may also act as a buffer against the impacts of unwanted western development. In this space, people engage in traditional livelihood practices to satisfy food and shelter needs and provide a resilience that is independent of the need to engage in external development. Here they gain a “measure of freedom” (Porter, Allen, & Thompson, 2014, p. 87) from what might be perceived as the controlling influences of external development.
McGregor (2007), researching in Timor-Leste, found the distinctions between what was termed indigenous and western development blurred. He found the implementation of local community owed goals often meant, “pursuing improved water systems, educational opportunities, health services and employment opportunities; things that are common development objectives around the world” (p. 167). Moreover, in contrast to large development projects with pre planned outcomes, McGregor found engagement with smaller “community or institutional partnerships and small grants programmes” (p. 168) provided opportunities for the Timorese to become development actors in their own right. A space where they could build their own development agency. Agency where the
Timorese are not “passive recipients or ‘victims’ of development” (p. 168) but experiment with development in ways that are meaningful to them. A place where both indigenous and western knowledge and technology are used to improve lives. In the context of this study, the post-development exploration of Mangaian SD, evident in the early parts of chapter 6, considers hope as a motivating force behind development decisions.