Schuurman’s essay categorizes the main criticism faced by development studies into three major themes and critically examines each of them elucidating the flaws in the theoretical framework of the field that opened it to each of these criticisms. He refutes some aspects of the criticism and internalizes some, discussing their impact on the future of the field. The three main streams of criticism can be labeled
- The fallacy of the essentialization of the third world
- Frustration with the notion of progress, and
- Doubts about the continued role of the state in the society
From the author’s analysis, development studies survive the major brunt of these criticisms, but there are valuable insights to be gained from the critics for the approach taken by development studies research.
The first important paradigm underpinning most conversation in development studies was that of essentialization of the third world. The history of development studies is bound up with the post-colonial interest of western scholars into newly independent states. As such, the rhetoric often bundled all the states of the South together and generalized the experience of the various peoples into that of the South as a whole. This essentialization of the South was attacked in the latter part of the twentieth century led by deconstructionist analysis. In direct response to the critique, development scholars shifted their focus from inequality in the third world to diversity in the third world. This change of focus was a knee-jerk reaction and had unintended consequences for the field. Whereas the original subject of discourse was well defined, if narrowly because of the lack of diversity attributed to the various nations, the new focus is an ill-defined notion with vague theoretical underpinnings and unstated objectives. This deconstructionist attack on ideals is all too common across the various branches of humanities. Viktor E Frankl advises post-deconstructionist philosophers to avoid the trap of mere reaction to the deconstruction. Instead, he advises renewed commitment to the goals of the scholarly pursuit, because the goals are in a sense external to the theory being attacked. He then builds a reflexive approach to theorizing that internalizes the problems brought into light by the deconstructionists. The author, in the current article beautifully translates this advice to development studies.
There is only a very thin line between tolerance (in the sense of accepting diversity) and cultural relativism where we tolerate each other but have nothing to say to each other anymore.
The essence of development studies is in the recognition of inequality and a commitment to the emancipation of socially ostracized groups in the South. The diversity of experience among the third-world countries does not nullify this goal. Recognition of diversity is vital in that scholars must actively address the impact of diversity, or lack thereof, on the particular problems being studied and solutions being proposed. Even if cultures and particular problems across the Southern countries are myriad, the primary difficulty of economic and social inequality that development studies address is a shared experience that forms the bedrock of this scholarly labor.
The second central paradigm, rather an assumption, of the field was an ultimate faith in the viability of the development project. Early development literature is littered with optimistic estimates of the development trajectories for various newly independent countries. Through years of challenges faced in these development efforts and due to the ever-changing landscape of the global political economy, these optimistic idealists became frustrated. Some scholars have shown obvious disappointment with the development project, slowly transitioning to the fatalistic view that it is too late or futile to attempt to develop the third world. A particularly strong strand in this challenge points to the cost and risk of the development project entails to the whole globe. For example, various estimates of the impact of the development of large developing economies to global warming are often used as proof of the unsustainability of these development goals. This rhetoric is both incorrect and unfair. It is incorrect because people of the global South already face considerable risk in the status quo due to problems that in fact development attempts to address. The fallout of development onto the globe is unlikely to make matters worse for these already disenfranchised peoples. It is precisely the already developed nations that have most to lose from global problems like warmings oceans because it threatens to destabilize their orderly society. This Euro-centric view is the reason that this rhetoric is unfair. It questions the development of the South by pointing to global problems that were created in the first place due to the development of the North. The second strand of rhetoric turning away from a commitment to development was mentioned earlier that seeks to replace the focus on development with that on diversity. As discussed before, the two concepts are orthogonal and must not be construed as competing theories. The common theme in these critiques is that they seek to help the poor forget the treasures of the first world, either by hearkening to the problems the development of the South is likely to cause the already developed North, or by positioning the cultural diversity of the South as a replacement for stability and comfort. As such this critique of development studies was never an honest challenge.
The final paradigm of development studies under attack is the central position accorded to the state in any development approach. Development studies was an amalgamation of ideas from economics, political science and cultural studies and all three of those fields held the state in a central position during the nascent phases of development studies. Thus it was natural for development efforts to take the role of the state in development effort for granted. Today, the authority of the state is being eroded due to globalization, both from the top as transnational financial flows and unlimited economic interdependence nibble away at the states’ sovereignty and from below as ethnic conflicts and regional disputes continue to simmer across the globe. As such, economics, political science and cultural studies have all shifted focus away from a powerful central state. Of the three attacks on development studies research discussed, this last focuses less on the goals or theories of development and more on the particular paradigms and methods employed by the scholars. If this challenge is, in fact, significant, the response would include innovation in the field to provide new theories of development in the changing global landscape. Still, the demise of the primacy of state in development efforts is not a foregone conclusion. A common theme in many contemporary movements that aim to decentralize power is a drive to empower local governments and reliance on civil society for effective governance. This rhetoric disregards the fundamental role of a stable state in the success of local governments. If these ideas of local governance are transplanted from stable Northern states to a country with an ineffective state, the local governments, and their citizens will be exposed to exploitation by large international powers like transnational private entities. Second, the concept of civil society needs more explication to be useful. Historically, civil society referred to loose groups of people brought together for the promotion of democratic ideals in an undemocratic society. These groups were not vested with power for active change, nor are they theoretically well defined. Contemporary references to civil society as a fundamental actor in governance are idealistic and not uniformly applicable across nations in its current form.
The final words of the essay are worth quoting as is
The challenge for development studies is to re-establish is relevance to study and to understand the processes of exclusion, emancipation, and development – not particularly by clinging to its once treasured paradigms but by incorporating creatively the new Zeitgeist without giving up on its normative basis, i.e., the awareness that only with a universal morality of justice is there [sic] is a future for humanity.
This conclusion harkens back to Frankl’s call to arms to fellow philosophers to make the humanist perspective the central tenet that keeps the goals of all efforts of philosophy lucid and unchallenged, and to learn from each misstep undaunted and innovate on the paradigms in a way that learns from the challenges.