Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to answer the second of my subsidiary research questions:
2. What perceptions of knowledge and development are portrayed and what values are activated?
a. How is knowledge interpreted and what ideologies underpin development education?
b. Which values are promoted and will these activate deep frames consistent with global social justice?
c. What images of other countries are provided by the organisation through internal attitudes and educational activities?
This question draws from the literature review, picking up on the role of values that strengthen social justice, and discussing postcolonial theory regarding the importance that development education does not undermine its key aims by
T ,
an understanding of these concepts is essential.
I begin by analysing data drawn from interviews and focus groups addressing
that informed their work. I also address some of the concerns raised over having a political agenda and indoctrinating learners. I found my participants held interpretivist epistemologies, and they overcame accusations of promulgating propaganda through using a range of perspectives. The role of values and emotions was explored, as well as the idea of deep frames (Darnton 2011), noting that in general these organisations worked hard to promote values that activated deep frames associated with solidarity and steered away from consumerist values. However, in considering development, I noted that
160
despite acknowledging the difficulties associated with the Live Aid Legacy (VSO 2002) in the UK and the early generations of development education in Spain (Mesa 2011a), some attitudes within NGDOs in Spain still activated the moral
order frame, associated with charity and superiority (Darnton 2011). However,
since none of these organisation relied heavily on fundraising, they were all
“
role of positive stories in development education.
Approaches to Knowledge
M
their educational activities, making this fundamental to understanding how they presented their work. To explore epistemologies, one of the statements used for the focus group discussions was: G
T
In general, there was consensus that there
were some facts. These were seen as useful tools when presenting issues. It was recognised that facts were open to interpretation and that there would be different perspectives on an issue, but all groups commented on the danger of falling into total relativism, and felt development education had to find ways to overcome this:
I think there is a danger of just being so woolly and amorphous I
of development
E
Participants noted that facts could be interpreted in different ways and the
different interpretations. It was through rationally handling the interpretation of facts that development education worked:
So you have to analyse each interpretation and see which is better at each stage in order to inform how to act. (Pilar)
161
In each of the focus groups it was recognised that facts were embroiled in complexity and to genuinely understand all possible interpretations would be difficult. Therefore it was important to acknowledge complexity and try to explore as many perspectives as possible. Moreover, participants from all groups said it was possible to be well informed about issues, and that the more information one could access from different perspectives, the better one would understand the situation:
It is impossible to know the total complexity of every topic, but you can be aware that it is complex, a changing reality ... Of course you
ormed.
(Pablo)
Maite noted that it was not necessary to understand all the details of an issue to see that some actions did not favour certain groups of people:
Y
system to know that it can produce inequalities, or that M
Similarly it was recognised that knowledge was incomplete. We should explore many perspectives, and accept there will always be aspects that we do not fully understand. This came out more in the UK context, where both focus groups commented on the importance of constructing knowledge together:
We always value people's perspectives ... we don't go in saying we have all the answers, that we have all the facts, we go in saying that all knowledge is incomplete, and everyone brings their thing... (Jenny)
In this sense participants saw a need to be open-minded, willing to engage in
I guess trying to get to think about what is being said and then trying to engage with it, but know that whatever I'm being told is not always the absolute truth, and I should be open to learning other perspectives, and to always bear that in mind. (Sally)
162
The importance of using rationality and critical thinking to work through facts, UK groups:
I think we should always critically look at the sources of those facts, I do think that there are some things that are factually true, it might be the date of an invasion, it could be a company funding a particular war ... I believe that there are facts ... but then there are also different perspectives ... but then there's so much complexity within what's happening that inherently whenever you talk about a particular thing happening, it's always incomplete knowledge there's always other things that aren't being also presented and that's where you end up with bias and that kind of thing. (Peter)
However, it was also noted that not all interpretations were equally valid, for instance holocaust denial was cited as an interpretation which they would refute (Sally), and they recognised the importance of rationality and evidence to support some ideas and refute others. In all four focus groups it was important to have some theory and information around which to base dialogue. This clearly resonates with principles of critical thinking and transformative learning:
Of course you can interpret things in different ways because different people and societies have different perspectives. P
are all equally valid. (Maite)
Facts could be used as tools to present information and challenge misconceptions, and it was important to consider the sources of those facts, and to keep up-to-date with information (UK: Sally, Dorothy, Jane; Spain: Pablo):
I think so much of the media around asylum seekers ... the whole
illegal immigrants, refugees, asylum seekers, economic
I
I
163
Jane also commented that statistics may be useful t
personal stories were often more powerful ways to get people to engage with an issue.
Ideology and Complex Issues
Development education has been criticised by some (for example Scruton 1985) for its Marxist premises. It is argued that despite advocating the importance of different perspectives, it ignores the benefits of the capitalist system. I address this here as my research question asks how NGOs can support transformation. From the literature review a key element of this process was dialogue. Consequently, it is essential to establish whether NGOs opened spaces for genuine dialogue or whether they aimed to promote a particular agenda. Therefore, another of the statements in the focus group discussions was: W
enjoy many freedoms in this country. We should think carefully about trying to This led to debates about the nature of
freedom within the current system and how this related to the ways we challenge this system. Searching for alternatives within the framework of the current system was cited in all groups as an important way to improve current injustices. Indeed, challenging the status quo was seen as an important benefit of the fact that we have freedom of speech and as a way to improve the system:
It depends how you interpret the statement as well, because you could interpret it, as ... we enjoy many freedoms in this country, and we should think carefully about trying to undermine the system we have, by that, if we don't undermine the system we have, we'll lose those freedoms, so ... unless we protest, unless we implement our right to freedom of assembly and freedom of speech, and things like that, we'll lose those rights. (Peter)
Some participants claimed that they were not advocating undermining the system, rather changing it to make it better, and as such were working within the system (UK: Sally, Dorothy; Spain: Pilar). Others argued that we should make the most of that freedom to transform society (UK: Peter, Jenny; Spain: Pablo, Carlos):
164
I
mechanisms to undermine or transform the system. ... Those freedoms ... should be used as opportunities to democratically and
P )
The focus groups were also given the statement: Capitalism is a system based
on the recognition of individual rights. It is a prerequisite of political freedom and the alternatives risk state repression. Therefore, it is important to also
consider the ben This rather dense statement
provoked a lot of debate. While most groups agreed that benefits of the current system should be recognised, the definition of Capitalism was seen to be questionable. All groups were critical of the dominant ideology. It was seen to increase inequality and benefit some more than others, to be individualistic, and not encourage people to show empathy or concern for others:
C
... but maybe if we all just think like that, if we only aim for a P
Indeed, all groups raised concerns with the definition given in the statement, suggesting that Capitalism was not synonymous with democracy, and that while democracy was important for the realisation of rights, this did not imply the need for market capitalism:
I
have
political freedom. (Pilar)
For three of the groups Capitalism was critically scrutinised, with participants suggesting that it was quite the opposite of democracy. As Peter argued, what was required for political freedom was more of a participative democracy:
... some people argue the opposite ... that Capitalism is the antithesis of democracy, it concentrates power and wealth into the hands of a tiny amount of people and the historical role of the state has always been to protect the rights of capital and those that own property and so ... by electing a leader that ultimately represents the ruling class. So I don't see that it's got anything to do with political freedom ... political freedom is the idea of all of us having a say on any decisions that impact upon our livelihood,
165
which involves some kind of participatory democracy, or self- management or something, and there's absolutely none of that entailed in a capitalist society. (Peter)
Furthermore, in three groups participants were critical of the idea that Capitalism recognised individual rights and did not see these two things as linked. Santiago commented that the only rights Capitalism recognised were those of capital. Sally noted that while we have rights to decide where to spend our money, in other ways our rights are not respected. Jenny and Peter commented that the rights to own property benefited certain social groups, while oppressing others, and Maite suggested that the current economic crisis was an indication of the inherent faults in the capitalist system. Pablo argued that political freedom could take many forms, such as collective politics, and he cited examples such as cooperative movements and neighbourhood associations, particularly those starting up through the 15M movement.41 Moreover, although individuals had the opportunity to benefit from the system, for some to benefit there had to be sacrifices from others, which meant that there was not equilibrium or sustainability (Pablo, Alba). They did not agree that democracy was only possible under a capitalist regime.
Participants claimed that since we were in a capitalist system with its structural injustices, considering alte NGO Participants in all groups argued that Communism and Capitalism were extremes, and that we needed something which combined the best of each system, or consideration of other possible systems. Dialogue about the possible alternatives to Capitalism was seen as an important dimension of development education:
T
communist countries political freedom is very restricted, but on the other hand they are more communitarian, there is lots of social
41
15M was the social movement which started with protests in the run up to elections throughout Spain on 15th May 2011. It advocated a dialogic and non-hierarchical politics and as a result of the movement, groups were forming at the time of the research in all Spanish cities. It has since allied itself with the Occupy movement in the USA and other countries.
166
protection, which capitalism has never seen. We need to create an intermediary system. (Pilar)
J
Capitalism referring to failed attempts at Communism in the Soviet Union. She noted that there were other alternatives which we could explore, such as deliberative democracy, cooperatives or communitarianism in the context of globalisation. Participants recognised the difficulties of a sustained organisational opposition to Capitalism, but opposed the thesis that to criticise Capitalism meant necessarily advocating Communism. Across all focus groups there was a view that the power relations associated with Capitalism were socially constructed. While they were all critical of prevalent injustices within this system, they did not encourage others to subscribe to a particular ideology. I asked all NGO workers whether they saw development education as a form of indoctrination. Participants stressed the importance of bringing questions to the table, for learners to think things through for themselves and form their own opinions (UK: Christopher, Kate, Jenny, Peter, Sally, Emma, Jane, David; Spain: Pablo, Carlos, Esperanza, Santiago, Maite, Pilar). Over-consumption was seen as an unsustainable model, which needed to be rethought, but no-one claimed to have all the answers (UK: Sally, Jenny, Jane, Christopher; Spain: Esperanza, Pablo, Alba), as Christopher explained:
... one student said to me: you know all this global learning, he
-
H C
A I I
anything about Capitalism per se, I mean I had implicitly I guess
criticised over- I
more sustainable future is necessarily like, I mean definitely an over-consumptive future is hardly going to be sustainable but you know there are people who are actually trying to reinvent Capitalism to be more sustainable. (Christopher)
Challenging assumptions and giving information that made people think about
(Esperanza) and ask questions about certain assumptions (UK: Christopher, Jenny, Jane, Sally, Peter, Kate, Rebecca, Elizabeth, Emma; Spain: Pablo,
167
Esperanza, Dolores, Pilar). In this sense it was seen as the opposite of propaganda:
I think it's kind of the opposite of propaganda, in that propaganda is saying we want you to believe this, whereas we're saying, have you ever thought about who makes your jeans, and we're not saying you just stop buying those jeans ... we're just saying, have you ever thought about it, do you know where they were made, do you know where that country is, what's life like in that country ... so it's a lot of asking questions and inviting people to think about something. (Jane)
Some participants recognised that, to some extent they did have an agenda, which was to encourage positive social change towards fairness (UK: Christopher, Kate, Rebecca, Elizabeth, Jenny, Sally, Peter; Spain: Pablo, Alba, Maite, Carlos, Esperanza, Ignacio, Dolores), and that learning about and exploring issues might enco
J I
never being value free, and participants expressed a need to be open about the values on which the work was based. These normative values were not seen to be particularly controversial, based on sustainability and social justice. As Elizabeth noted:
... we do have an agenda at some point as well ... we want a more just and sustainable world ... and we want young people to actually think about these things and consider how that connects with their lives. (Elizabeth)
However, Emma acknowledged the dilemmas they faced when discussions led to conclusions that did not coincide with her own values:
It reminds me actually of a role play thing with a group of 16 - 18 year old girls about the arms trade, and they ... all decided that it was perfectly fine ... to sell arms. And ... although it might be fine for me to walk away from that and say, that was fine, we had a debate and they chose something that I thought was wrong but you know. Actually I didn't feel like that at all, I felt that they hadn't properly engaged with the issues and that therefore I, in some measure, had done it the wrong way... and so therefore I
idea of what a positive outcome
168
This type of dilemma was reconciled by principles common to popular education; acknowledging that education could never be completely neutral did not mean it was indoctrination. Thus, when these dilemmas occurred participants would place themselves on the side of the oppressed, standing up to exploitation, discrimination or violence, and this would define their position (UK: Peter, Jenny, David; Spain: Pablo, Carlos, Maite, Fernanda).
For some it was necessary to simplify the messages they gave, to prevent people from feeling paralysed to act (UK: Jane, Emma, Dorothy, Rebecca; Spain:
M P F T
(Peter). Showing a range of different perspectives, where a space was provided to let learners decide and form their own opinions, was seen as a key way to avoid indoctrinating learners:
... our opinions our values and beliefs do come into it, but that doesn't prohibit us from being able to explore other ideas either and I think ... we do generally try to select different viewpoints as well, so it's not like we're just selecting one particular stance on something. (Sally)
Indeed, having a wide spectrum of different viewpoints was mentioned by participants in both contexts (UK: Jane, Sally, Jenny, Kate; Spain: Pablo, Carlos, Pilar, Maite):
Critical dialogue comes from a diversity of ways of thinking ... what we try to do is promote a broad spectrum of ways of seeing something ... and look for common ground within that diversity. (Pilar)
Being open-minded and willing to challenge your own perspectives was discussed (UK: Peter, Jenny, Sally, Jane; Spain: Carlos, Pilar). In this sense the NGO workers entered into I-Thou encounters with their participants (Buber 1947). Ultimately, it was important that learners were able to come to their own conclusions and were given the skills they needed to critically analyse sources of information and different perspectives, without presupposing that
E
169
(Crompton et al. 2010). Development education was seen as an opportunity to engage people to think about their own place in the world and make their own decisions:
I think there are spaces where people can sit and talk and discuss ... to see what vision of the world you have and what your priority values are. ... Our idea is to develop a critical spirit, in which everyone can make their own decisions about their place in the world, their relationship with others, with their environment, their role as a citizen, as a consumer, as a person in general. (Carlos)
In the UK there was some discussion about the difficulties of accommodating
T
was important to respect all views and allow all voices to be heard, even those with which the workers did not agree with (Kate, Jane, Christopher, Rebecca, Jenny, Sally), such as the BNP.42 It was recognised that every person had different life experiences that affected their identities and development education workers had to engage even with opinions that opposed their own. In doing so they showed signs of fair-minded critical thinking (Paul 1990) and dialectical reasoning:
Obviously all our work is about different perspectives and valuing different perspectives, and so, we might get a young person whose dad's in the BNP, and as much as we don't agree with racism, we