Development postcolonial: a critical approach to understanding SDGs in the perspective of Christian social ethics

IF 4.6 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
M. Vogt
{"title":"Development postcolonial: a critical approach to understanding SDGs in the perspective of Christian social ethics","authors":"M. Vogt","doi":"10.1017/sus.2021.31","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary By distinguishing between developed and less developed nations, the concept of development subtly establishes hierarchies and a supposed comparability, which is highly ambivalent from a socio-ethical point of view. The idea of holistic development in Catholic social teaching focus on cultural dimensions and therefore sets an important counter accent to the fixation on socio-technically producible and countable things. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) lack a coherence between the social and the ecological components as well as a naming of power conflicts. For a power-critical, postcolonial and participatory concept of development, their interpretation could learn substantially from the encyclical Laudato si'. Technical summary The paradigm of development is subjected to a radical critique in parts of the academic debate: Is the idea of development, which in a gesture of aid divides the world into “developed” and “underdeveloped” nations and thus establishes a hierarchy, still politically and morally justifiable at all? Has this concept possibly become a backdoor to prolong the old colonial power relations into the 21st century, even to increase them in some cases? Is development one of the great utopias of the 20th century that promised freedom and brought division? Is the ecological overexploitation of global resources the inevitable reverse side of the spread of the Western model of prosperity disguised as “development”? Do the SDGs act subcutaneously as enablers of Western imperial power, or do they represent a genuine paradigm shift? This article explores these questions in four steps: 1. Is the age of development is over? 2. The ideal of “integral development” – steps of a revision process 3. In the tension between ecological and social goals: A Comparison of the “Sustainable Development Goals” and the Encyclical Laudato si' 4. Priorities and strategies of a “post-utopian development policy”. Social media summary The shadows of colonial thinking are still effective today in development concepts fixated on countable factors of socioeconomic efficiency.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Sustainability","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2021.31","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Non-technical summary By distinguishing between developed and less developed nations, the concept of development subtly establishes hierarchies and a supposed comparability, which is highly ambivalent from a socio-ethical point of view. The idea of holistic development in Catholic social teaching focus on cultural dimensions and therefore sets an important counter accent to the fixation on socio-technically producible and countable things. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) lack a coherence between the social and the ecological components as well as a naming of power conflicts. For a power-critical, postcolonial and participatory concept of development, their interpretation could learn substantially from the encyclical Laudato si'. Technical summary The paradigm of development is subjected to a radical critique in parts of the academic debate: Is the idea of development, which in a gesture of aid divides the world into “developed” and “underdeveloped” nations and thus establishes a hierarchy, still politically and morally justifiable at all? Has this concept possibly become a backdoor to prolong the old colonial power relations into the 21st century, even to increase them in some cases? Is development one of the great utopias of the 20th century that promised freedom and brought division? Is the ecological overexploitation of global resources the inevitable reverse side of the spread of the Western model of prosperity disguised as “development”? Do the SDGs act subcutaneously as enablers of Western imperial power, or do they represent a genuine paradigm shift? This article explores these questions in four steps: 1. Is the age of development is over? 2. The ideal of “integral development” – steps of a revision process 3. In the tension between ecological and social goals: A Comparison of the “Sustainable Development Goals” and the Encyclical Laudato si' 4. Priorities and strategies of a “post-utopian development policy”. Social media summary The shadows of colonial thinking are still effective today in development concepts fixated on countable factors of socioeconomic efficiency.
发展后殖民:从基督教社会伦理的角度理解可持续发展目标的关键途径
非技术性总结通过区分发达国家和欠发达国家,发展概念微妙地建立了等级制度和所谓的可比性,从社会伦理的角度来看,这是高度矛盾的。天主教社会教学中的整体发展思想关注文化维度,因此与对社会技术上可生产和可计数事物的执着形成了重要的对立。可持续发展目标缺乏社会和生态组成部分之间的一致性,也缺乏权力冲突的命名。对于一个权力批判、后殖民和参与式的发展概念,他们的解释可以从通谕《Laudato si》中学到很多东西。技术摘要在部分学术辩论中,发展范式受到了激进的批评:发展理念在政治和道德上是否仍然合理?发展理念以援助的姿态将世界分为“发达”和“欠发达”国家,从而建立了一种等级制度?这个概念是否可能成为将旧的殖民大国关系延长到21世纪的后门,甚至在某些情况下会增加这种关系?发展是20世纪承诺自由并带来分裂的伟大乌托邦之一吗?全球资源的生态过度开发是西方繁荣模式传播的必然反面吗?可持续发展目标是作为西方帝国权力的推动者,还是代表着真正的范式转变?本文分四个步骤探讨这些问题:1。发展的时代结束了吗?2.“整体发展”的理想——修订过程的步骤3。在生态和社会目标之间的张力中:“可持续发展目标”与Laudato si'4通谕的比较。“后乌托邦式发展政策”的优先事项和战略。社交媒体摘要殖民思维的阴影今天在关注社会经济效率的可数因素的发展概念中仍然有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Global Sustainability
Global Sustainability Environmental Science-Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
3.60%
发文量
19
审稿时长
17 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信