Development?

This is a creative, narrative piece I wrote for my Introduction to Global Development course at the London School of Economics and Political Science. I am reinterpreting this fictional story from my previous Sociology class at Vassar College ( "The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas" by Ursula LeGuin) to better illustrate my points on development in a creative way. I understand that some of the pictures and narrative may be problematic as I often could not find appropriate ones. But I acknowledge that this is not perfect and my aim is to instigate conversation and thought, and not a definite conclusion.

There is a perfect town. There are no children or elderly. Everyone is an adult. Everyone contributes to society. The streets are clean; no one is sick. There is equality on all levels and everyone is equally appreciated. No disagreements, no arguments, no violence. Everyone supports each other and encourages one another. Everyone loves and is loved. It is peaceful.

Somewhere below the streets, there is a group of children. No one addresses this group of children and the children go about their lives without any interaction with the perfect town.

No matter who or what you are, there is no singular entity that is devoid of change ­– we are both prone to change and are catalysts of change. Many believe that development means changing for the better – the act of moving forward, improvement. I would like to point out that it is the perspective and rate of improvement that is crucial in defining development today. No matter what, we are moving forward, we are changing, just at different rates. The moving forward is defined by us.

If a modern businessman decides to live with a caveman-like lifestyle and survive on basic necessities, is that development? In a neoliberal capitalist environment, he may not be considered developing as he is not contributing economically to society (Harvey, 2005). Yet, in an alternate perspective, his actions could be considered development. We could believe that in doing so, he is saving the environment, having a healthier lifestyle, and a higher level of happiness by consuming less.

Similarly, if a caveman continues to progress by his own trajectory, he is developing at his own rate. But because the modern businessman has progressed past that stage at a much faster rate, he believes there is a large distinction between his level of development and the caveman’s – a disadvantage that the caveman possesses. By believing that the caveman is “slower” in their rate of improvement, the businessman considers him underdeveloped. Therefore, the meaning of development is improvement, but it is humanly defined by the societies we live in.

Most recently, development has been defined by the Western society, who have “set the standards” for development (Rist, 2008). While other civilizations have shown development in their individual communities, none have expanded at such a high rate as the West. With the Industrial Revolution, Europe was able to boost globalization and reach out to further parts of the world. In comparison to Western standards of economic progression, social welfare, and technological advancements, other countries “lacked” or had a drastically slower rate of development, constituting to Western colonizers’ ability to capitalize and colonize them. The many forms of colonization catalysed countries to meet Western standards of development – some succeeded, while others failed and even deteriorated any form of progress towards Western development.

In the perfect town, a group of men want to help the children. The men come underground and see them. “They are different”, they think. “They lack what we have.”

Ben Page (2014) uses the example of the film Daybreak in Udi to connote the British colonial policy in Eastern Nigeria and Cameroon and their efforts to “develop” the Africans through colonial community development, endorsing a “self-help” strategy. Yet these strategies could not be entrusted on the Africans, but require foreign, Western saviours who guarantee their prosperity and success, generating a system of dependency on the colonial state (Page, 2014: 838, 862).

The men see the children as ignorant, uncouth, and uneducated about the ways of the perfect town. “We used to be like them. How awful they must feel! We need to help them become more like us.”

There is a huge disparity between “traditional” and “modern” that the colonizers and Rostow (1997) in his modernization theory has defined. Both Page and Rostow (1997) apply a geographical “othering” to societies, insinuating that the “modern” society, which adheres to Western values of development, is the one better off. On the other hand, the “traditional” rural African society is limited, often stuck in conventional values, and lack several qualities that allow them to progress to the colonial state’s standards (Page, 2014: 861, 862). This is evident as one of the factors that the colonizers think leads to development, is by Africans becoming quasi-Europeans and having a more Western set of thinking than their fellow “traditional” and “rural” Africans, allowing them to take on a more progressive role in helping their areas develop (Page, 2014: 861).

The children who know how to dress like them, talk like them, and walk like them, evolve into teenagers. They are appointed role models and moderators between the men and children.

The men give the children seeds.

They believe the children could grow and eventually feed themselves.

But the children gobble up the seeds instead, not understanding the men’s intentions. The men give more and the children gobble them up every time, now forgetting to forage for their own food and relying on the men for sustenance.

Page affirms that community development and “self-help” strategies are a form of colonialism and often worsens the colony’s situation and ultimately perpetuates a Eurocentric development system (2014: 863, 864). Despite depicting a reputation that the European colonial officials were aiding the Africans, they created an ironic vicious cycle where the colonies continue to depend on their help by making themselves sole “experts” on African development (Page, 2014: 864).

Similarly, Matteo Rizzo exemplified the failure of “development” through the clash of East African Groundnut Scheme aims and the development priorities of the local colonial state (2006: 235). The British attempted to address their economic crisis and started the groundnut scheme to substitute for their shortage of vegetable oils and fats (Rizzo, 2006; 207). They wanted to capitalize on the large amount of land in Southern Tanganyika, Africa, using it as their main site to produce groundnuts for Great Britain.

The men realise that these seeds can grow into apple trees that were only fertile underground – where the children live.

As apples are valued commodities for the men, they decide to ask the children to help grow their apple trees in exchange for cloth.

Yet, several factors compounded to the groundnut scheme’s failure in Tanganyika, mostly due to the inability of the colonizers to understand the needs and priorities of the Africans. The British had already established a geographical “othering” of the Africans, but re-evaluated their initial conclusions about innate African backwardness. They were surprised by the speed of the African population to adjust to opportunities and new skills, commenting that the local African could “absorb all the new things about him” (Rizzo, 2006: 217).

They start to teach the children how to grow these seeds. The children are adept, efficient, and learn quickly, to the men’s great disbelief.

Moreover, the British could not see that the Africans’ lifestyles were embedded in household farming, often only needing to reach a target income to maintain their standard of living (Rizzo, 2006: 234, 236).

The men did not understand that the children were already self-sufficient by having their own cherry farms.

This played a huge role in the low labour supply, especially during a good harvest, as the peasants would rather sell their own produce than return to wage work. This was further magnified as the groundnut employers were willing to pay high prices for food and other wage goods, creating a lack of economic pressure for the Africans to work in the groundnut plantations (Rizzo, 2006: 226, 229).

The children realised that the cherries were in high demand by the men and do not want to grow apple trees.

To counter this, the British attempted to extend the workers’ stay by increasing wages, but it worsened their problem as the Africans earned their target income more quickly (Rizzo, 2006: 236).

Although the men tried to get more children to grow apple trees by trading more cloth, the children realised they could obtain even more cloth from their own cherries.

“They sure are a lazy bunch”, the men said decidedly. “They don’t know the value of what our apple trees and cloth can do to their lives.”

After all their failed attempts to increase the labour market, the colonial administration understood the peasants’ declining labour supply was due to the Africans’ lack of commitment and lazy attitude (Rizzo, 2006: 234). They consistently believed that what was good for the groundnut scheme was good for Tanganyika (Rizzo, 2006: 234), completely disregarding the Africans’ abilities and own priorities.

The children continue to live their lives but still grow and improve on their own grounds. The men continue thinking the children are underprivileged and naïve, unable to reach the perfect town’s stage of prosperity at the same rate as they did.

In conclusion, there was complete ignorance of the colonizers who did not understand the needs of their own colonies. Because the colonizers were comparing development by their own standards, they failed to understand and dismissed any form of African lifestyle unless it conformed to theirs. As a result, it backfired on them. Development means improvement and changing for the better, yet this completely depends on whose perspective and what they define as improvement. Today, development is determined by a scale of Western standards and whatever does not satisfy their conditions or reach their scale at the same rate, is considered underdeveloped (Rist, 2008).

Bibliography:

Harvey, David (2007). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford University Press

Page, Ben (2014). ‘And the Oscar Goes to… Daybreak in Udi’: Understanding Late Colonial Community Development and its Legacy through Film. Development and Change 45: 838-868.

Rist, G. (2008). The history of development: from Western origins to global faith, 3rd edition, London, Zed

Rizzo, Matteo (2006). What Was Left of the Groundnut Scheme? Development Disaster and Labour Market in Southern Tanganyika 1946–1952. Journal of Agrarian Change 6: 205–238.

Rostow, W.W. (1986) Chapter 2: The Five Stages of Growth: A Summary. In: Rostow, W.W. (ed.) Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-communist Manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 4-16