Development Constructs and the Vernacular of Control

Washington University in St Louis -2004

If development arose as a construct of Western motivated problematization of poverty, how are we then to understand true social reality in nations that are negatively affected by this activity? Can we possibly define a social reality different from the concept of development as presented by the Western World? My tendency is to frustratingly throw up my hand and say -too late! Development is indeed a repetitive, omnipresent reality. This reality has been colonized by the development discourse motivated from a Western construct.

Why has other attempts to construct development reality in terms other than western denominated propositions failed? Ujaama in Tanzania, collectivization in the former Soviets, the Kibbutz in Israel, even the Ghandi Ashrams of India are largely relics of history, they do not have the continuing impact or influence of the all Western colonial construct of development. Our world seems to have been wired in a manner that makes any divergent form of thinking essentially impermissible. This is what Foucault asserts.

Even when development is seeing as encompassing cultural space, we must ask the question: which culture is being referred to? Are we referring to the hermaphroditic co-mingling of contexts which now exist in virtually every cultural space on the globe? Can we point to any space where cultural reality maintain a pure strain? The answer to this is clear, such pure cultural spaces are virtually non-existent.

Critical reinterpretation of African history which is defined from a purely western perspective, understanding of gender issues in non western world on grid presented solely by scholars from the West are a deep cause for concern (Chandra Mohanty, Mudimbe)

When we see the poor as a social problem and when we refer to them as a people needing transformation and assistance is essentially a vernacular of control. It is amazing how strongly we have all imbibed this vernacular! It is so easy to associate pauperism with immobility, vagrancy, independence, frugality, promiscuity, ignorance and refusal to accept social duties, refusal to work, to submit to the logic of expansion of needs. Realistically however, we are surrounded by living proofs that the opposite is the truth (Proccaci in Escobar)

The historicity and the depths of the economic conception of poverty and the creation of a separate class of poor nations and basing this solely on needs as defined by the so called development experts is a further manifestation of the vernacular of control. The declaration by Mr. Roots in 1916 that America has a duty to build the Panama Canal "with or without the consent of Colombia” sounds terribly familiar in 2004 geopolitics. Today, the dominant discuss revolves around the "Axis of evil." Conflict in nations seems to be motivated by partners in economic adventurism, there is a rise in unilateralism, there is a neutralization of the views of non-compliant nations and even non compliant multilateral institutions. It is interesting to watch the "Root Doctrine of Strategic Self Interest of United states” seems to dominate US foreign policy in the 2004 elections.

We must cease presenting development as a secular theory of salvation and stop the infantilization of the Third World.