The Inadequacy of Post-Development Theory to the Discourse of Development and Social Order in the Global South

The post-development theorists argue that certain characteristics of the ‘Western’ ways of talking about and representing the non-West should be understood as ideological projections rather than as scientific knowledge about people and places elsewhere. To these theorists, the ways of conceiving and representing development that are closely bound to the North's development agencies and programs reveal more about the selfaffirming ideologies of the Global North than insights into the peoples of the rest of the world. In addition, the post-development scholars take up the position that development has less to do with human improvement and more to do with human control and domination. This theory suggests that societies at the local level should be allowed to pursue their own development path as they perceive it without the influences of global capital and other modern choices, and thus a rejection of the entire paradigm from Eurocentric model and the advocation of new ways of thinking about the non-Western societies. However, this developmental model for the societies of the Global South, especially Africa, is inefficient because it is a kind of cultural relativism, which is capable of veering into fundamentalism and does not allow for mutual borrowing. The thrust of this study lies basically in presenting that a combination of cultural knowledge and Western development theories through an adaptation of post-development model is needed for development and social order in Africa. This means that an all-inclusive model encapsulating life promotion and centred on human should be adopted as a development model for Africa. Social Evolution & History / September 2019 230 A CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS OF POST-DEVELOPMENT THEORY In the 1990s, the post-development theorists argued against modernization and development for its reductionism, universalism, and ethnocentricity, that is, examining development from the ‘top-bottom’ approach, which identifies that societies of the Global South should borrow essentially from the developed societies. While the post-development theorists proffer the discussion to be seen and examined from the ‘bottom up’ approach as Gilbert Rist writes that, ‘it is recognised that “development” has to be built “from the bottom up”, and that its medium-range objectives may vary from one society to the next’ (Rist 2008). This approach of the post-development theorists lies in the interest not in development alternatives, but in alternatives to development and thus a rejection of the entire paradigm from Eurocentric model and the advocation of new ways of thinking about the non-Western societies. Post-development suggests that we allow societies at the local level to pursue their own development path as they perceive it without the influences of global capital or other modern choices and forces. Post-development theorists like Rist, Escobar, Rahnema, Bawtree, Kothari, and Minogue among others based their discourse on the critical analysis of development. While earlier theories of development like dependency and modernisation usually focused on inadequacies that prevented the achievement of development among societies of the South, the post-development theory rejected the totality of entire paradigm and denounced it as a myth. They (post-development theorists) argue that development has been seen essentially from non-Western societies into their diverse deficiencies as regions in need of modernisation according to the models set by the Western societies. The post-development theory has also been characterised as ‘beyond development’ and ‘anti-development’ for its disruption of development's reductive nature. Rist avers that ‘development’ problematics is inscribed in the very core of the Western imaginary. That growth or progress should be able to continue indefinitely – that is the idea which radically distinguishes Western culture from all others. This characteristic, as strange as it is modern, sets up between nations a division far greater than all those forged in the course of history to justify the ostensible superiority of the West (Rist 2008: 254). The post-development theorists' argument, according to Lauren Karplus, is that the traditional concept of development is authoritarian in nature and technocratic in execution; that is, whoever decides what development is and how to achieve it is typically in a position of power (Karplus 2014: 5). Stefan Andreasson postulates that ‘post-development emphasizes the damage to local cultures, and the ways in which man relates to other huOlatunji and Bature / The Post-Development Theory and Social Order 231 man beings and the natural world of which he of course is an integral part, in an age of increasing commodification, individualism, competition and, consequently, alienation’ (Andreasson 2007: 8–9). Here, there is the quest for understanding of development not how to deliver development interventions and to minimize the failure of development as enshrined in the tenets of other theories of development; the post-development theorists believe that no amount of analyses will make the development agenda a success. They argue that the problem with development is not about how it is implemented, but rather that development itself is a flawed concept which should be eliminated from the discourse on human progress. It is also on the notion of development avowed effects on local or indigenous cultures that post-development theorists are championing against since it is purely ethnocentric and racial in nature and discourse, saying that it must be rejected not merely on account of its results but because of its intentions, its world-view and mindset, using Pieterse's analogy. Jan Pieterse identified the post-development with an alternative form of development and examined it as a roving critique of mainstream development, shifting in position as the latter shifts; as a loosely interconnected series of alternative proposals and methodologies; or as an alternative development paradigm, implying a definite theoretical break with mainstream development. It can be viewed as concerned with local development, with alternative practices on the ground, or as an overall institutional challenge, and part of a global alternative (Pieterse 2001: 74). He raises a fundamental question against the alternative form of development – post-development – as how alternative is it? What is different from the new alternative models and the so-called mainstream models, which are being castigated by the post-development theorists? Is it because of the methodologies, agents and objectives that the alternative model is different from the mainstream? Does it mean that the development, to be of alternative model, is to be people-centered, endogenous and self-reliant to use Nyerere's dictum? According to Pieterse's analysis, ‘over the years alternative development has been reinforced by and associated with virtually any form of criticism of mainstream developmentalism, such as anti-capitalism, Green thinking, feminism, ecofeminism, democratization, new social movements, Buddhist economics, cultural critiques, and poststructuralist analysis of development discourse. ‘Alternative’ generally refers to three spheres – agents, methods and objectives or values of development. Alternative development is the terrain of citizen, or ‘Third System’ politics, the importance of which is apparent in view of the failed development efforts of government (the prince or first system) and economic power (the merchant or second system)’ (Ibid.: 85). This model of development, according to Pieterse, ought to be endogenous as it is not a matter of importing external models from other societies. This endogenous nature takes everything from within in order Social Evolution & History / September 2019 232 to cater for all aspects of development that will be beneficial to people of such society or community. To him, self-reliance, then, does not simply concern the means but the end of development: the goals and values of development are to be generated from within (Pieterse 2001: 86). That is, an endogenous outlook is significant and important to post-development, which is seen as an alternative model to the Westernized models that are been deconstructed. Peet and Hartwick write in support of the claim above that post-developmentalism rejects the way of thinking and the mode of living produced by modern development in favor of revitalized versions of non-modern, usually non-Western, philosophies and cultures. From this view, modern Western development is destructive rather than generative, a force to be resisted rather than welcomed (Peet and Hartwick 2009: 230). While Elliot Siemiatycki in Post-Development at a Crossroad: Towards a ‘Real’ Development quotes Maiava's analysis that what to term as a real development will involve ... indigenous people determining their own future, confident, not intimidated, but free people determining what they want to do and doing it for themselves, exercising agency, actively moving forward to create better lives and improve their well-being according to their own priorities and criteria as they have done for millennia (Siemiatycki 2005: 58). Matthews Sally avers that ‘the problem, from the perspective of postdevelopment theorists, is not that the project of development was poorly implemented and that it is necessary to find a better way to bring it about, but that the assumptions and ideas that are core to development are problematic and so improved implementation is not the answer’ (Matthews 2004: 375). The problem with this kind of model is that it disregards the dialectics of modernity as Pieterse (2001: 110) adds ‘Post-development is based on a paradox. While it is clearly part of the broad critical stream in development, it shows no regard for the progressive potential and dialectics of modernity – for democratization, soft power technologies, reflexivity’, and a possible return to ethni