culture and development
June 6, 2010 11:23 PM Subscribe
What is the role of culture in post-colonial development?
This concept has come up more than once in my history classes and I still don't get it. Something about notions of culture being somewhat like racism? Something about power? I'm not sure exactly what I'm trying to ask, but I know there's an idea my teachers have been trying to get across to me, so I'd really like to understand. Most recently, I think I was probably supposed to have gleaned something of this concept from Arturo Escobar's "Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World," but I get the impression that once I understand what's going on, this will seem like one of those really basic ideas that pops up everywhere.
This concept has come up more than once in my history classes and I still don't get it. Something about notions of culture being somewhat like racism? Something about power? I'm not sure exactly what I'm trying to ask, but I know there's an idea my teachers have been trying to get across to me, so I'd really like to understand. Most recently, I think I was probably supposed to have gleaned something of this concept from Arturo Escobar's "Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World," but I get the impression that once I understand what's going on, this will seem like one of those really basic ideas that pops up everywhere.
I think this is something you should ask your teachers about, outside of class.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 11:48 PM on June 6, 2010
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 11:48 PM on June 6, 2010
Best answer: Could you just ask one of your professors? Don't worry about sounding dumb - most professors would rather have a student who is engaged and wants to understand than one who just passively takes in lectures and doesn't really understand the concepts.
As a guess, though - one of the big debates in development does revolve around culture: specifically, how does a wealthier nation help a poorer nation develop without imposing its own cultural values onto the poorer nation? For instance, there is a trend in development circles of putting resources into improving educational outcomes for girls. Now, this is something I totally support, and there have been lots of studies linking girls' educational attainment with overall increased quality of life for a community. However, by deciding to put funding into girls' education in a culture where girls did not traditionally go to school, nations like the US are promoting their own cultural values.
I should point out that this is not at all a sophisticated question - it's sort of Development 101. And most post-colonialist scholars are pretty sophisticated, so it might not be what you're looking for. Seriously, just ask your prof.
posted by lunasol at 11:54 PM on June 6, 2010 [1 favorite]
As a guess, though - one of the big debates in development does revolve around culture: specifically, how does a wealthier nation help a poorer nation develop without imposing its own cultural values onto the poorer nation? For instance, there is a trend in development circles of putting resources into improving educational outcomes for girls. Now, this is something I totally support, and there have been lots of studies linking girls' educational attainment with overall increased quality of life for a community. However, by deciding to put funding into girls' education in a culture where girls did not traditionally go to school, nations like the US are promoting their own cultural values.
I should point out that this is not at all a sophisticated question - it's sort of Development 101. And most post-colonialist scholars are pretty sophisticated, so it might not be what you're looking for. Seriously, just ask your prof.
posted by lunasol at 11:54 PM on June 6, 2010 [1 favorite]
Um, I meant that the debate I mentioned is unsophisticated, not your question.
posted by lunasol at 11:55 PM on June 6, 2010
posted by lunasol at 11:55 PM on June 6, 2010
Best answer: Basically the problem is that "culture" is an essentially contested concept. No one can really agree on what it is. What most anthropologists (historians, sociologists, etc) have been able to agree on is that it doesn't make sense--and it may well be racist--to say that certain groups have a "culture" that negatively or positively affects their economic, social, etc "development."
Thus the work of Lawrence Harrison, which claims that "culture matters" inasmuch as certain peoples are simply unsuited to "modern," "developed" life because they are fatalistic, unmotivated, and so forth, are often regarded as problematic at best, racist at worst. That sort of thinking was very much on display when David Brooks channeled Harrison in commenting on the role Haitian culture played in the earthquake disaster, hence plenty of critique from annoyed anthropologists.
My "basically" above papered over literally decades of discussion about the role of culture in anthropology and other social sciences, but I'm doing my best here.
Really, the problem is three-fold. One is methodological: we can't agree on culture is, but anthropologists do now by and large agree that it doesn't make sense to talk as if cultures are clearly bounded, clearly defined, and unchanging. That of course isn't true: groups change all the time, and many societies are made up of many different sorts of people. To claim that something about a group's culture essentially defines them (that Asians are good at math or do better under authoritarian regime, that Muslims are all patriarchal, that Africans are always late) can start to sound a lot like racism. Sure the presumptive biological cause of essential sameness on the part of a group has been replaced with a cultural cause, but the rather lazy generalizations are just as disturbing, and often look almost the same.
Thence to the second problem: that appeals to culture often leave out the importance of history and politics (this is where power comes in). Brooks takes a beating in one of the links above because he simply behaves as though Haiti's problems have nothing to do with the long history of colonial and post-colonial exploitation--as well as internal political issues that it doesn't really make sense to lay at the door of Haitian culture.
Third, talk about "culture" can also have a built-in sense of hierarchy: that some cultures are more advanced--or, in the more sophisticated but still problematic turn that Harrison takes, that some groups have cultures more amenable to "development." Scare-quotes abound here because "modernity" and "development" are also contested--seen as a problematic term because we tend to define the US and Europe as at the pinnacle of "development" and everyone else as more or less successful at catching up with us, rather than considering that some places may simply be different.
Anthropologists and others often find themselves in a bind, however, because they want to claim that culture does matter--that we shouldn't simply focus on the "real" economic or political issues--but that it doesn't matter in the way that people like Harrison want it to. That is, we can't take culture as an easy out that explains paths of development or historical events without recourse to specific historical context, power relations, and so forth. The first link to Savage Minds above links to some contemporary efforts to help make culture make sense to people outside the discipline.
Escobar is a classic here, but I've always found Ferguson's classic, The Anti-Politics Machine, to be easier to understand and less prone to overstatement. His essay with Akhil Gupta has also been an important one on the problematic position of culture, although it's part of an enormous literature. Memail me if you want to talk more.
posted by col_pogo at 11:59 PM on June 6, 2010 [2 favorites]
Thus the work of Lawrence Harrison, which claims that "culture matters" inasmuch as certain peoples are simply unsuited to "modern," "developed" life because they are fatalistic, unmotivated, and so forth, are often regarded as problematic at best, racist at worst. That sort of thinking was very much on display when David Brooks channeled Harrison in commenting on the role Haitian culture played in the earthquake disaster, hence plenty of critique from annoyed anthropologists.
My "basically" above papered over literally decades of discussion about the role of culture in anthropology and other social sciences, but I'm doing my best here.
Really, the problem is three-fold. One is methodological: we can't agree on culture is, but anthropologists do now by and large agree that it doesn't make sense to talk as if cultures are clearly bounded, clearly defined, and unchanging. That of course isn't true: groups change all the time, and many societies are made up of many different sorts of people. To claim that something about a group's culture essentially defines them (that Asians are good at math or do better under authoritarian regime, that Muslims are all patriarchal, that Africans are always late) can start to sound a lot like racism. Sure the presumptive biological cause of essential sameness on the part of a group has been replaced with a cultural cause, but the rather lazy generalizations are just as disturbing, and often look almost the same.
Thence to the second problem: that appeals to culture often leave out the importance of history and politics (this is where power comes in). Brooks takes a beating in one of the links above because he simply behaves as though Haiti's problems have nothing to do with the long history of colonial and post-colonial exploitation--as well as internal political issues that it doesn't really make sense to lay at the door of Haitian culture.
Third, talk about "culture" can also have a built-in sense of hierarchy: that some cultures are more advanced--or, in the more sophisticated but still problematic turn that Harrison takes, that some groups have cultures more amenable to "development." Scare-quotes abound here because "modernity" and "development" are also contested--seen as a problematic term because we tend to define the US and Europe as at the pinnacle of "development" and everyone else as more or less successful at catching up with us, rather than considering that some places may simply be different.
Anthropologists and others often find themselves in a bind, however, because they want to claim that culture does matter--that we shouldn't simply focus on the "real" economic or political issues--but that it doesn't matter in the way that people like Harrison want it to. That is, we can't take culture as an easy out that explains paths of development or historical events without recourse to specific historical context, power relations, and so forth. The first link to Savage Minds above links to some contemporary efforts to help make culture make sense to people outside the discipline.
Escobar is a classic here, but I've always found Ferguson's classic, The Anti-Politics Machine, to be easier to understand and less prone to overstatement. His essay with Akhil Gupta has also been an important one on the problematic position of culture, although it's part of an enormous literature. Memail me if you want to talk more.
posted by col_pogo at 11:59 PM on June 6, 2010 [2 favorites]
nthing talking to your professors outside of class.
Reasons:
a) We can only guess what they're trying to get across. Given that culture is such a contested notion, and given that power and racism are also contested notions, their specific take on these definitions is probably pretty important vis a vis course material.
b) Talking to your profs about things you are having trouble understanding is a habit that it's good to develop as early as possible. i.e. doing this now will help you in other classes, later.
c) Having an actual interactive conversation about this allows you to gain a deeper understanding than anything we can offer you here, although you have received useful answers within the parameters of what is possible on this forum. :)
Good luck. As someone who is a member of many groups that get essentialized in negative ways, I am strongly in favour of everyone getting a good handle on the complexity of these issues.
posted by bardophile at 1:01 AM on June 7, 2010
Reasons:
a) We can only guess what they're trying to get across. Given that culture is such a contested notion, and given that power and racism are also contested notions, their specific take on these definitions is probably pretty important vis a vis course material.
b) Talking to your profs about things you are having trouble understanding is a habit that it's good to develop as early as possible. i.e. doing this now will help you in other classes, later.
c) Having an actual interactive conversation about this allows you to gain a deeper understanding than anything we can offer you here, although you have received useful answers within the parameters of what is possible on this forum. :)
Good luck. As someone who is a member of many groups that get essentialized in negative ways, I am strongly in favour of everyone getting a good handle on the complexity of these issues.
posted by bardophile at 1:01 AM on June 7, 2010
Response by poster: Thanks, everyone!
Lunasol, I especially appreciate your bolded answer. It is the answer I was looking for.
Col pogo, I don't know how to be sufficiently effusive in my thank you. That was a quick, organized, and thoughtful response that neatly summarized a lot of ideas I've come across. I look forward to going through those links and picking up a book or two from the library.
To everyone who suggested that I talk to my professors: thanks, that's a great idea! I am in the habit of doing just that, but this has still been bugging me for some time and I'm glad to finally have a handle on it.
posted by aniola at 1:23 AM on June 7, 2010
Lunasol, I especially appreciate your bolded answer. It is the answer I was looking for.
Col pogo, I don't know how to be sufficiently effusive in my thank you. That was a quick, organized, and thoughtful response that neatly summarized a lot of ideas I've come across. I look forward to going through those links and picking up a book or two from the library.
To everyone who suggested that I talk to my professors: thanks, that's a great idea! I am in the habit of doing just that, but this has still been bugging me for some time and I'm glad to finally have a handle on it.
posted by aniola at 1:23 AM on June 7, 2010
If you happen to be in the Disney world area in the next month stop at animal kingdom lodge. They have people from africa working at the lodge doing tours and talking about their country and stuff (here for 1 year on a work visa then they go back to africa). Its the perfect thing for what I am guessing you are talking about.
I just came back from there and would talk to them for hours. ITs really cool to see what parts of their culture came from the english when they were still running things in africa and what came from their local tribes.
A lot of peope white or black in africa when they talk english sound like they are from australia.
Also A lot of african countries have english as an official language because most tribes each speak their own dialect and english is the language everybody knows so they speak to each other in english.
posted by majortom1981 at 9:26 AM on June 7, 2010
I just came back from there and would talk to them for hours. ITs really cool to see what parts of their culture came from the english when they were still running things in africa and what came from their local tribes.
A lot of peope white or black in africa when they talk english sound like they are from australia.
Also A lot of african countries have english as an official language because most tribes each speak their own dialect and english is the language everybody knows so they speak to each other in english.
posted by majortom1981 at 9:26 AM on June 7, 2010
Its really cool to see what parts of their culture came from the english when they were still running things in africa and what came from their local tribes.
I have to second this type of opportunity, if you can find it. Even in post-colonial times you can see significant effects of the former colonial powers can be found in modern day organization and values, relating to how local power was chosen, what the colonial power's values were, etc. I used to live in Ghana (English) and was shocked at how English it seemed, especially after going to neighboring Togo (French) and spending a lot of time with the Ivoriens (Ivory Coast, also French) and Nigerians (English). Fascinating world we live in.
posted by whatzit at 1:30 PM on June 8, 2010
I have to second this type of opportunity, if you can find it. Even in post-colonial times you can see significant effects of the former colonial powers can be found in modern day organization and values, relating to how local power was chosen, what the colonial power's values were, etc. I used to live in Ghana (English) and was shocked at how English it seemed, especially after going to neighboring Togo (French) and spending a lot of time with the Ivoriens (Ivory Coast, also French) and Nigerians (English). Fascinating world we live in.
posted by whatzit at 1:30 PM on June 8, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by shii at 11:42 PM on June 6, 2010