Postmodernism and Post-development

The term ‘postmodern’ is often applied in a vague or imprecise way to social and political practice. There are differing strains within this perspective, but there is a degree of consensus that writings by Francois Lyotard and Jean Baudrillard have been influential in shaping this field. Certain works and writings by post-structuralists such as Jacques Lacan, Roland Barthes, Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida have contributed to the body of postmodern social theory. Lyotard refers to the end of ‘grand narratives’ – the end of attempts to make some kind of overall sense of history. The notion of development as a universalised path of human progress is one such example. In postmodern social theory, there are no universalised criteria of truth, and claims to knowledge are always contextual. Contemporary social institutions and practices are profoundly structured by the massive expansion of consumer society and the disintegration of more sTable forms of production and political and industrial relations.

The consumer society is rootless, and everyday experience within it is influenced, mediated and fractured by a variety of sources of communication, especially of an electronic form. Postmodern thought has a differential application. In ‘harder’ forms, postmodernism contributes to the concept of ‘post-development’, in which the idea of reasoned and critically-oriented planning for and reflection on improved socio-economic and political conditions for humankind is seen as an exercise in futility. It questions the sine qua none of development theory and policy. Developmentalism, the language of development, is seen as Universalist, teleological and ethnocentric; it is presented and taken as a recipe for social change, while it is in fact a “discourse of power”. Whilst critical of the status quo, such approaches are not always very helpful in advancing practical knowledge and understanding. At the worst, such approaches can be politically debilitating: If working for change cannot resolve the problem of large scale power imbalances in society, then it is not worth trying to reform things.

In its ‘softer’ variants, postmodernism can alert scholars and policy makers to the variety and diversity of forms of knowledge, as well as the need to locate and learn from indigenous knowledge and to take more cognisances of localised groups and the plurality of cultural practices and preferences.

Taking more heed of the voices of marginalised peoples and minority groupings could contribute to a more empowering and creative approach to empowering women, and taking gender identities and gay rights more seriously. Such an approach is not that far removed from older progressive development theory emphasising the importance of consultative and participatory approaches to development, but the analytical and ironic style of postmodernist thought does provide more theoretical legitimation for exploratory and experimental forms of development theory and practice. Influenced by post-modern theory, which had problematised the notion of the universalised human progress, and the intensified globalisation of economic and social life in the last decade of the 20th century and the early years of the 21st century, a heterogeneous perspective, known as post-development, emerged in the late 1980s.

Also referred to as ‘anti-development’ and ‘beyond development’, Pieterse (1998) typifies post-development as ‘a radical reaction to the impasse of development theory and policy’ (p. 360). He argues that an extreme dissatisfaction with business-as-usual and standard development rhetoric and practice, and disillusionment with alternative development, form the backbone of this position. Development theory and practice are rejected, because it is the “new religion of the West” (Rist, 1990), because it is the imposition of science as power (Nandy, 1988; Rist, 1990), giving rise to ‘laboratory states’ (Visvanathan, 1988); because it simply does not work (Kothari, 1988); because it means cultural westernisation and homogenisation (Constantino, 1984); and because it brings environmental destruction.

‘Post-development’ starts out from a simple realisation: that attaining a middle-class lifestyle is impossible for the majority of the world’s population (Constantino, 1984:97:

Dasgupta, 1985:177; Nandy, 1988:145; Visvanathan, 1988:241; Rist, 1990:15;

Pieterse, 1998:360).

Contextualising the emergence of the post-development movement, Escobar (2006) states that during the last 50 years, conceptualisations of development have seen three main movements, corresponding to three contrasting theoretical orientations which can be classified according to their underlying paradigms (Escobar, 2006:447-451).

 In the 1950s and 1960s, the modernisation theory, with its related theories of growth and development (liberal theories).

 In the 1960s and 1970s, the dependency theory and related perspectives (Marxist theories).

 In the second half of the 1980s and the 1990s, coinciding with the ‘cultural turn’

in social sciences, critical approaches to development as a cultural discourse (post-structural theories).

The modernisation theory received a first blow from the dependency theory, for which the problem was not development per se, but rather capitalism. A second blow came in the 1980s, when a growing number of cultural critics questioned the very idea of development. Development was analysed as a discourse of Western origin that operated as a powerful mechanism for the cultural, social and economic production of the Third World.

The deconstruction of the development promise led post-structuralists to postulate the possibility of a ‘post-development era’ (Escobar, 1992). The post-development school, however, did not produce a uniform set of theories. For some, this notion meant that development would no longer be the central organising principle of social life (Escobar, 1995). Others emphasised the re-valorisation of vernacular cultures, the need to rely less on expert knowledge, and social movements and grassroots mobilisations as the basis for moving towards the new era (Rist, 1990:87; Shiva, 1993:154; Rahnema &

Bawtree, 1997:67).

Unifying the post-development school is criticism of the underlying assumptions of development. Issues of power, domination and resistance come to the foreground as, it is argued, development comprises a set of knowledges, interventions and world-views (a discourse), which are also powers to intervene, to transform, and to rule.

Development is not a neutral vision, but embodies geopolitics, enacted and implemented through local elites (Sidaway, 2008:175).

In the second half of the 1990s, however, these criticisms became the object of criticism themselves. Escobar (2006:449) argues that this may be seen as a fourth moment in the historical sociology of development knowledge. As Sidaway (2008:175)

theorists are actually reformulations of past scepticisms and alternatives that have long been evident. For instance, throughout the 20th century, ideas of self-reliance and basic needs have also been sceptical of many of the claims of development (Escobar, 2006:449; Sidaway, 2008:175).

Dependency theory has also been, in part, a rejection of Western claims of development as a universal panacea to be implemented in a grateful Third World.

Furthermore, dependency theory sometimes took the form of a rejection of Western modernisation as corrupting and destructive or as a continuation of colonial forms of dominance. Marxist accounts have long pointed to the uneven character of development and its highly contradictory consequences. Feminist scholars have criticised development for its representation of Third World women as needing Western ‘liberation’. Hence, some critics claim that post-development is not beyond or outside the development discourse; and thus merely constitutes a new episode in the debate.

Escobar (2006:453) discerns three fundamental objections to the original post-development proposals:

 With their focus on discourse, the post-development theorists overlooked poverty and capitalism, which are the real problems of development.

 They presented an over-generalised and essentialised view of development, while in reality there are vast differences among development strategies and institutions; they also failed to note the ongoing contestation of development on the ground.

 They romanticised local traditions and social movements, ignoring that the local is also embedded in power relations.

Some counter-arguments: The term post-development encompasses a very diverse and heterogeneous group of writers. To criticise development is not necessarily to reject change and possibility; rather, it is to make us aware of the consequences of framing this as 'development'. Other conceptions of development in terms of ecology, democracy, etc. would present a different image of developed and less development countries. Hence, post-development might not be novel for its scepticism, but rather for its theoretical framework (discourse analysis) (Escobar, 2006:453).