# data[].attributes.body
Both Escobar and Gardner I believe are trying to respond to one fundamental question that seems to have arisen from a form of identify crisis and that is – If development is inevitable, then what can anthropologists offer to it? In answering this question, they both suggest a form of “distanced entrenchment”, i.e, working in the field, albeit through a relentless critique of mainstream interventions. If this is the positionality, I wonder if that means we will never be the mainstream? Further still, should we even aspire to be there?
-Anu-

Response to Anu -
Reading the article, I asked myself the same questions about anthropologists being in the shadows, and whether this is for the best. Escobar seems happier in his capacity as an anthropologist to act as a check and balance on those more active in development, and his final point about the promise of grassroots social movement seems to nominate these as mainstream operators, rather than those in his own position and discipline.
-Bea

# data[].attributes.body
One of the main questions I was left with upon finishing this article is: what good is knowledge, or what is the power that it holds, if no action can come from it? Ferguson writes early on in this piece that despite the proliferation of critique within the development sector, there is still “remarkably little understanding of what it [critique] actually accomplishes” (p. 141). Part of his conclusion even goes as far to suggest that most academic work is “so irrelevant and powerless in its encounter with development” (p. 151), which ultimately led me to wonder about the impact of not just anthropologists, but all social scientists (within the “area studies” or “international specialists” subgroups Ferguson specifies) on various sectors in general. As long as the work of specialized anthropologists is undervalued and undermined, one would think it would make more sense for, let’s say a development anthropologist, to abandon this title and apply their knowledge to a new role that allows more agency, such as a nurse, chemist, engineer, accountant, etc. Of course anthropology theories are not applied by anthropologists alone, but I believe the possibility of less skewed/biased data or algorithms, or problematic approaches within various fields would still hold. - Mahali

# data[].attributes.body
I found Ferguson’s argument about the ways in which anthropology and development are intertwined and reciprocal (albeit begrudgingly) convincing. It is interesting how although (or maybe because) self-reflexivity is so bound up in the anthropologist’s plight, there is an uneasiness and tension when trying to define oneself against one’s ‘alter egos’ out in the field. This paper was written in 1997 or earlier; Ferguson argues that the majority of anthropologists likely regard work to be more valuable if carried out within locales that development has deemed to be in peril, which results in this kind of mutuality/dependency. I wonder if this is still the case 20+ years later? Do anthropologists still pedestalise work among ‘hill people’ in Southeast Asia over work among, say, dairy farmers in Britain?
(As a millennial, the way I internalise information is through memes so I made one to summarise Ferguson's argument)
- Ayesha B

Response to Ayesha:

First off, as a fellow millennial, you've done us all proud.

That meme  touches on many points. One being that anthropological work are not just achieved by anthropologists, these insights don't just belong to anthropologists. NGO's engaged in fieldwork may be just as or more so submerged than an anthropologist, within the social order that is subject to their development. Their Fieldworkers may consist of individuals from the local communities.

I completely agree with your ideas on if Ferguson's ideas from 20+ years ago are still in play. Right now there is a huge trend in critiquing existing work regarding anthropology of development. The various works of Escobar, Gardner and Lewis and Marc Brightman. Just applying a logical rationale, if these works did maintain the same level of impact we wouldn't have so many critics of existing works ight now.

And again that meme, to use a phrase developed in urban youth culture to describe something amazing, is litty!
- Shabazz

In response to Shabazz:
True! Thank you for highlighting that actually. And also thanks for appreciating what may possibly be my finest contribution to the discourse :-)

I also liked the meme, highlighting Ferguson's point of how Anthro and Development are intertwined. Just to add, I am also convinced by this especially as they both similar origins- (e.g. Tylor's reference to social evolution s development theory). Moreover,  Ferguson's title: 'Anthropology and its Evil twin' is metaphor of the relationship between Anthropology and Development as almost identical, while being opposites.
+Phoebe's repsonse

# data[].attributes.body
These where two of my conclusions after the reading: social sciences are sometimes criticized because their theories are more viable on paper than in practice, but it is now more than ever that we need anthropology to not only deconstruct the idea of ​​development, but to prioritize its approach towards poverty and inequality. Criticism is necessary and nourishing, but even when it comes to “eurocentric development”, I believe we must generate constructive criticism that really leads us to mobilize new and more pertinent actions. - María Mónica

I agree that anthropology is much needed within development, especially as the article emphasises that anthropologists are trained to see beyond the 'immediate formal relationships' (or the technical solutions of development practice). The discipline's use of participatory methods should be helpful in prioritising the wider issues of poverty and inequality, along with its emphasis on an outlook that sees the interconnections between cultures around the world.
Izzi B

Response by Moustafa:
I am not sure if I can agree with anthropologists being able to contribute within the boundaries of the development discourse. As Ingold (2014) and Shah (2017) argued, anthropological work is premised on participant observation that requires time (and accordingly resources), which is basically very limited, and in certain cases absent, in how development works. Hence, I find myself in agreement with Escobar and Ferguson that there isn't much that anthropology can do in and of development but rather tackle other pressing issues that highlight the discourse and modernization project.

Response by Elliot:

I agree that if criticism (which is much needed) leads to inaction it is not serving its function and that it should aim to generate new and pertinent forms of engagement. I suppose the cause for caution is that, as Escobar writes, 'development proceeded by creating abnormalities which it would then treat or reform'; the caution being what we define as 'underdeveloped'. It does seem that Anthropology certainly has a part to play in 'transformative participation', challenging power relations, engaging with broader inequalities and criticising the structures which have perpetuated development's destructive practices.

# data[].attributes.body
It is very interesting how the author highlights the importance of “diversity of experiences and interaction of daily life” and how it is absolutely relevant, and from my point of view, necessary, in order to raise “gender” actions and thus shake hierarchies and power relations. I definitely think, we should address all dimensions of a person when talking about power and “gender”; from the relationship with oneself, with our families, work dynamics, in our city, in our country, in our region, and on the planet, all equally important. - María Mónica

Response by Priyanka-
I completely agree with Maria's point. The social systems dynamic is more complicated and nuanced. Even within categories of gender women of different age, role, etc. have different needs and behave differently  based on who they are, where they come from, their existing circumstance and who they are interacting with in the moment. This is exactly what is highlighted by social cognition theories of perception in psychology. Output behaviour is not just one-dimensional, but is influenced by pre existing schemas, immediate context, social power position, interrelation to targets of interaction and even the persons biological state at the moment. All of which are dynamic and fluid with the potential for change from moment to moment basis.

# data[].attributes.body
The part from Cornwall's article that I found most profound is where he highlights how top down categorisation of target groups even the minority/ excluded/underrepresented still leads to an oversimplification of the target audience. Making one question whether despite the effort of being gender sensitive and gender neutral and gender representative, is the research or developmental model actually doing so? This is especially prominent where he highlights how younger women are often discouraged from being part of meetings due to patriarchal gender norms enforced on them by elderly women in their immediate surrounding. There is an existence of  subcategories within the category of gender as well. 2 years back I was part of a research team documenting why girls drop out of schools. We too found a similar pattern of observations where the mother and elderly women in the neighbourhood were the most vocal in discouraging the girl from going to school and the fathers in contradiction encouraging the girls to study but scared of their wives and societal norms giving in. This was a finding that questioned the hypothesis that the father is the decision maker and preventing the girls education. However when the research findings (that what's happening on ground is more nuanced and complicated, and it's not just the father's responsibility to educate the girl) were taken back to the top management, the schematised categorisation of perceiving women as the victimised gender lead them to refuse to acknowledge that the mother too could be playing a negative role.

Response by Mahali:
Thank you for sharing the findings of your research. The fact that it can at times be the older generations of women discouraging the "modernization" of younger generations is certainly very interesting, an`d something that we actually saw in one of the videos in today's tutorial where the grandmother (wearing traditional clothes) initially tries to convince her granddaughter (wearing more "Western", "modern" clothes) against pursuing an education/independence. I wonder how these conversations would play out within matriarchal Indigenous communities.

# data[].attributes.body
I found Cornwall’s argument very interesting, where she talked about GAD potentially being used as another superimposing structural model, that approaches gender-based development issues from particular preconceived frames of reference. This process can create highly essentialised images of gender and power, equating ‘gender’ with ‘women’s issues’. If not used effectively within development, ‘participation’ can be implemented in tokenistic ways by the elites, rather than being used to actually dismantle and challenge globalised structures of dominance and subordination, that in turn can be used to oppress marginal men. Participatory methods should therefore be used to address the ‘differences within’ societies, in a way that privileges the immanent over the imminent. It is not enough to simply allow the voices of the silenced to be heard, but participatory dev. should enable them to become co-producers of knowledge and take control of their own development, transforming the structures that contribute to their powerlessness.
Izzi B

# data[].attributes.body
Cornwall does a fantastic job of critiquing participatory techniques as tools of research / development, by compared it to GAD approaches. It definitely makes you think about representations, voices, influence, and also the tokenism associated with it. I enjoyed reading about the "politics" of a "technical" process.
-Anu-

# data[].attributes.body
Is anyone able to access this article? I couldn't, including the link sent by Catherine on Moodle

# data[].attributes.body
I found it interesting that Gardner and Lewis argue that anthropologists' role should rooted in questioning the processes of development, as well as the causes behind the supposed need for it. In this sense, they're implying that the focus should be on anthropology OF development. However, they phrase this in terms of there still being 'an important role for anthropologists working WITHIN development.' I.e. The former has now become an integral form of the latter.
- Bea

Sheu Jeen's response to Bea:
This is an interesting observation. The semantics sometimes confuses me, but I am trying to understand this by looking at the anthropology OF development as being the knowledge (theories, critiques that anthropologists can bring to the table). Whereas anthropology WITHIN/IN development as the action (the role in working within the practice to drive change at different levels, "involved" or activist anthropology). Not sure if this makes sense to others...

Bo Yang's response to Bea:
I think it is just the better way by which anthropologists could work into development projects. By approaches that on the one hand, anthropologists could apply ethnographic methods for accessing more local voice than other quantitative-oriented social science, so that facilitating the mutiple participation; on the other hand, anthropologists could keep cautious for questioning such process shaped by mainstream discourse, state power and so forth. I feel the more complex or even paradox accounts developed by anthropologists are not leading to the dilemma, but the clearer understanding about such programme. therefore, authorities, local people or practitioners could get more choice and insight, for finding the balanced way, not the perfect solution.

Bo

Enakshi's response to Bea
I think it is important to be working WITHIN development to interpret the fundamentals of bringing positive change in the field OF developmental studies which consists of theories and critics as Sheu Jeen explained above as these theories OF development can then spiral out to be shared amongst various other anthropologists and a diversified set of audience.

# data[].attributes.body
The way the authors dissect the practicality of Anthropology seems rather refreshing. They begin with ideas that for an anthropologist to have meaningful impact they must bridge the gap between knowledge an action. Then introducing the idea of the results from a deconstructive stance on the anthropology of development. With heavy critique of existing work becoming a trend, anthropologists are too focused on the issues with existing work and not in producing ideas of how change in a positive direction should happen.

Personally, I really agree with this remark, it is not just an issue within development but across a variety of disciplines.   Take the study of migration for example, there have been many critiques of the colonial lens that is used to examine the "subject" yet not many thoughts on how to move forward, besides the acknowledgement that it would be a difficult task. Furthermore, all this critique of existing work has created suspicion around the western involvements in development, therefore making it harder to get involved in the how to make a change. So everyone jumping onto the bandwagon  of critiquing, have effectively created a brick wall for themselves that they cannot get through.

The solutions offered by the author take shape in a series of questions the anthropologist can ask themselves, such as how is the project designed? is it based on unfounded assumptions?

There Is another ideas that resonated with me. The language used to describe the "third world" is not neutral and is rooted in colonization, and driven by the need to maintain economic dominance by the North. To me this reduces development  from the improvement of societies to a method of power distribution used by those in power. If we applied the work of Paul Silverstein (Immigrant Racialization and the New Savage Slot: Race, Migration, and Immigration in the New Europe, 2005) development would be a tool to address the national anxiety felt by the north, a way to deal with the potential threat of the third world.

This bring me to a final point, a statement with which I disagree. The author at one point says the problems of the South, may be imaginary constructs of the North to use as a justification for the continuance of dominance of the South. Whilst I undeniably agree it is a construct of the North and a method of exerting power and control, I do not agree with the use of the word imaginary. Many of the issues in the south are results of imperialism, for instance the economic state of India which was in ruins from the moment colonial powers were established. If we reference Escobar's work (The invention of Development 1999), he addresses development in the third world eloquently. Saying that development in the third word has been successful to the extent of creating a type of manageable (technically and politically) underdevelopment. Managing it politically being a method to maintain their position within he global power hierarchy. So whilst the constructs are a creation and result of the actions of the North and a way of exercising power, they are in no way imaginary. Look at poverty, we're not imagining people living in terrible conditions. If anything these are the results of intentional actions. So Intentional Constructs.

To be fair, we could argue that all labels are a construct of those in power and strip the issue of its label, but that does not get rid of the issue itself.

- Shabazz

# data[].attributes.body
The suggestions put forth on the multitude of ways that anthropologists should be more actively “involved” in development practice were extremely interesting. There is no denying that anthropological (and generally speaking, social science) expertise is largely missing from the development field. Development policies and programmes that are not built upon a thorough understanding of the socio-economic, cultural and political nuances of the local context and communities run the risk of being ineffective, irrelevant and unsustainable – in other words, a complete waste of time and money. The self-reflexive processes among anthropologists are crucial if the aim is to radically shift the paradigm of development to one that is more inclusive, egalitarian and bottom-up. It would be very interesting to know if similar processes are underway within the other “technical” fields of development, e.g. economics, healthcare, engineering, logistics, etc. After all, development is a multi-disciplinary practice!
- Sheu Jeen

Response to Sheu Jeen by Anu- I wonder about this too! 2 weeks of reading and I feel there is so much self doubt in anthropology, something which I dont see so readily in other fields. It almost feels like anthropologists (in this case development anthropologists) are the conscience keepers of the discourse, the process, the outcomes, and therefore have some sort of a moral role to play over anything else. Does anyone else feel this way or is this just my very premature conclusion?

Response to ANU
I agree with you that anthropologists do seem to be  positioned as the conscience keepers of the process of development, particularly in this piece. I think that anthropology's reflexivity is particular to the discipline, something which seems to have developed from a conscious rejection of its roots in colonialism, and its effort to compensate for the damage its colonial incarnation did. However, I feel as though Gardner and Lewis's assertion that Anthropology is needed in order to essentially keep development in check- 'Anthropologists can play a part in ensuring that the issues of equity and participation within the 'development process' are uppermost'- is not bold enough. To me, it seems like a more admirable goal would be to infuse development practice with these values anyway (perhaps by starting reflexive conversations across disciplines, as Sheu Jeen mentions). The idea that an anthropologist would have to be present in order to ensure these things seems like evidence that the entire system of development needs to be overhauled- simply inserting an anthropologist into a project to keep an eye on things, in Gardner and Lewis's words, 'to keep the developers under control' seems a little weak. We should be bolder in demanding that developers change!

Dora Taylor

Response to Sheu Jeen:
I really liked your thoughts on the reading :) specially the idea that since development is so multi disciplinary there should be some sort of dialogue between fields. However, I think we would find out that anthropology is very much alone in its struggles to self-reflect what development is / should be. My feeling is that the very concept/action of development is so contradictory to the idea of anthropology itself that is impossible to fully digest it. If you study and care about different human behaviors and cultures, how can you buy into a concept that tries to englobe all the world into one single definition of “progress”, that allows the disruption of the natural evolution of cultures by justifying the intervention of some societies over others? Still, we need to keep trying to find a way to “develop” together because the inequalities of the world are too deep and unsustainable to ignore them. It is a trap - that maybe for other fields is easier to escape. Laura Torres

Response to Dora by Anu - I'm tending to agree with you that we should be bolder in asking for change and demanding a form of reflexivity for all of the development rather than making it the sole responsibility of the anthropologist. Im increasingly getting uncomfortable with the idea that the role of the anthropologist has largely to do with conscience keeping / gatekeeping - this means that someone "else" is doing the development, and "we" are to keep the tab on that?

# data[].attributes.body
I have the same problem

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Maria’s point of view. Both, in the past and nowadays, certain forms of development have done more harm than good. Many projects failed despite high budgets, therefore in order to build a new vision, more anthropological work is required to provide insight into the black box of development interventions and to redirect policy makers towards achieving the right objective: to help the less fortunate to thrive, therefore eradicating all sorts of labels- first world, third world, developed, underdeveloped etc.
Stefania

# data[].attributes.body
https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/20.500.12413/14757/Can_We_Know_Better_Reflections_for_Development.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

# data[].attributes.body
Not a question but just for sharing, I came across an interesting article on "de-colonising" development communications and stories:
https://www.bond.org.uk/news/2020/09/race-and-representation-in-ngo-storytelling-responses-to-5-frequently-asked-questions
-Sheu Jeen

# data[].attributes.headline
Yes - i was able to access this link now!

# data[].attributes.subject
Yes - i was able to access this link now!

# data[].attributes.body
In this chapter of Mosse’s book he recounts and analyses the effectiveness of using PRA to voice the needs of the poor members of society in a Bhil village in India. Although concluding that PRA did allow some liberation for villagers to reflect on their practises, overall he sees it as another tactic (maybe not as purposeful as this?) to appease donors and ‘complete the goals’ of the project outline,  in turn (and by) not sufficiently voicing the needs of the poor.

Powerful villagers often became those who took control over projects, leading to the exertion and emphasis of already existing local power dynamics. The form of the meetings being both public and focused on linguistic expression, also posed an issue. The chance of marginalised members of society contributing linguistically and in a public space, particularly women (due to hierarchies and condemned to express knowledge), was small. Those whose voices needed to be heard most desperately, were missed.

A more explicit way the poor members are silenced, but maybe not one assumed at first glance, is by project leaders picking local participants who already possessed the characteristics that the project aimed to create. This guaranteed a measure of ‘success’, something so imperative for development projects (to keep up funding etc.). The project leaders are so determined to complete the ‘aims’ and tick boxes in order to satisfy the donors, they actually go back on the true goals of the project: to alleviate poverty. Mosse therefore demonstrates how PRA does not always guarantee empowerment of the poor and can in fact lead to the opposite.
Emma N

# data[].attributes.body
Perfect. Thank you

# data[].attributes.headline
Escobar/ Gardner, Lewis- what role should anthropology play in development; critic or participant?

# data[].attributes.subject
Escobar/ Gardner, Lewis- what role should anthropology play in development; critic or participant?

# data[].attributes.body
Escobar is clearly critical of development in general but his further critique of "the anthropology of development" asks for me an important question. As anthropologists should we closely guard our objectivity and remain observers and critics of development institutions and their practices or should we be using our insight to change from within and assist. Gardner and Lewis offer a more optimistic outlook outlining various ways that anthropologists could be part of evolving development practice while still warning of the pitfalls. I prefer this approach as they make a strong case for anthropology to bring social issues to the same level of importance as economic or technical issues. Ali

# data[].attributes.body
It was fascinating for me (a Development newbie) to read this piece following Chamber’s. The latter reads so optimistically that I couldn’t help but feel positive (if not slightly inundated) reading about the seemingly infinite possibilities/combinations/methods of PMs, PRAs, ICTs etc. Mosse offers a more sobering account of the myriad challenges on the ground, however. For instance, where Chamber’s piece includes that we should consider empowerment a ‘moving target,’ whereby changing goals should be taken as a positive sign, Mosse likens this constant need for more to a ‘project-wide anxiety’ to ‘keep up momentum’ out of fear of losing the interest of villagers whose trust they had just gained.

In the piece, Mosse also explores Chamber’s ‘Who’ and ‘Whose’ within the context of the Bhil village, which for the most part are the more influential/powerful villagers (and also, lowkey, the ‘rendering technical’/budget/organisational system of IBRFP). In addition to this, privilege is awarded to jankars, those especially compliant to development objectives.

What I understood by reading both pieces however that it may be easy to idealise or appreciate these various methods (theoretically or not), but by offering villagers alien/imported tools as the sole means of communication, is participatory development – even if partially ‘liberating’ -  just a way of controlling agency and outcomes?

-        Ayesha B

# data[].attributes.body
While I enjoyed this insightful piece (partly due to the non-technical language), I find a problem with the way Chambers distinguishes between “upper” and “lower”. I understand that he is putting forth a rhetorical question here, but isn’t it starting off fundamentally on the wrong foot of positionality if right from the beginning we are already thinking of ourselves (practitioners, professionals, experts) as “upper”, and others as "lower"? And while it may seem like a good approach of reflexiveness and recognising our power and biases, if one is not careful with such binaries we could find ourselves perpetuating the neo-colonial development discourse: North vs South, developed vs underdeveloped, modern vs backward?
- Sheu Jeen

Response to Sheu Jeen
I had a similar impression about his somewhat binary distinction while reading, and it seems that the "upper," namely donors, including government and NGOs, still hold the power over important decision makings, although "the lower" are allowed to participate in part of the process.

It was interesting to learn about the various trials of participatory methodologies, but I had the impression that the "participation" seems to be largely short-term. It remains a question for me about how to realize a meaningful long-term engagement (although this may be due to my lack of knowledge about each project mentioned in the reading).
Ryoko

# data[].attributes.body
Escobar is clearly fiercely critical of development, and it appears the role of the anthropologist in development. I found it interesting to apply the unofficial mantra of anthropology to Escobar's critique of anthropologists who engage with development agencies. Through field work, the purpose of the anthropologist is to "make the unfamiliar familiar, and the familiar unfamiliar". Escobar's critique of anthropology in development seems to rotate around the idea that 'the anthropologist…constructs local situations not in terms that conform to the subject's reality but in terms that make sense to the organization, that is, as a reflection of development categories' (p 673). Whilst I largely contest that the anthropologist constructs reality in ethnography- rather a subjective reality that belongs to no one but instead reflects the lived, multifaceted and often uncommunicable experiences of those that they observe- I found this idea that anthropologists working in development familiarise the unusual through the projection of familiar norms of development to be an interesting manipulation of the methodological mantra.

Gardener and Lewis generally seem to portray a more optimistic vision of the anthropologist in development and seem to grant anthropologists an opportunity to realign themselves with the adage and distance themselves from the manipulation of anthropological methods that Escobar associates them with. Gardner and Lewis insist on the importance of anthropologists to attempt to make the familiar unfamiliar by adopting a sceptical stance and questioning the positions of the developer.
- Claudia

# data[].attributes.body
I really enjoyed this chapter; it was a great piece of ethnography to accompany the other more theoretical articles that I read. One thing which I found particularly important was Mosse's unpicking of the differences within groups of 'local', 'poor' people. These words, in the other chapters and in development in general, seem to assume a homogenous identity for people within a particular village. What David Mosse does so well here is show how 'local knowledge' is not one thing- different people within the same locale have different priorities and needs, and hierarchies based on wealth, status and gender mediate whose needs are vocalised and prioritised within the PRAs, and who became more actively involved in the projects- 'in the main, the 'active' were the better-endowed members of village society.'
DORA

# data[].attributes.headline
When is an anthropologist not an anthropologist?

# data[].attributes.subject
When is an anthropologist not an anthropologist?

# data[].attributes.body
Can anthropology play an active role in development and if so, what should it be? Both the theoretical and development anthropologists are looking at the same groups of people in the same locations but through different lenses. The academic anthropologists continue to view their role as the hands off observer in the field. Is this a continuation of the 19th century obsession with the exotic and undeveloped? I would argue that it can certainly be seen that way. Are development anthropologists, taking a place alongside the economists and agronomists, simply post-colonialists driving for modernisation or relevancy of anthropology as a science?  Can the theoretical and development branches of anthropology aim for some reconciliation? It would be interesting to know if such tensions in theory and practise exist between theoretical and academic economists, agronomists and other social sciences.

Response by Moustafa:
I would like to share my personal experience when reading Ferguson, Escobar and other work critical of development as a practitioner. At the time I was a Monitoring and Evaluation Officer that also led 'proposal development' processes. While I was not an anthropologist, I felt trapped in the paradox of someone resonating with academic knowledge that pleads development guilty of reproducing hegemony, and as myself being a practitioner that exercises hegemonic violence through categorisation of individuals as 'poor,' 'marginalized,' 'smallholders,' and so forth to be able to 'analyze' and translate social processes into positivist, intelligible (in development language) reports. I also felt how this 'violence' materialises in the preconceived timing of measuring 'results,' 'theory of change,' and 'expected outcomes,' as I was developing some proposals.

# data[].attributes.body
Reading both Ferguson and Gardner and Lewis, it became apparent that anthropology and development can work to overcome their combined issues.
When looking at anthropology historically, it began as armchair scholars and only got to the field thanks to colonialism and missionaries. This alone could explain the ethnocentrisim found in the discipline despite the countless efforts to criticise and analyse and come up with solutions. Whilst we have moved far away from how we started, and have managed to overcome many of our own limitations. It is still difficult to accept that an anthropologist knows what he or she is talking about, especially for other sciences, whether politics or development. All these notions are, to a certain extent, interconnected, which proves more difficult for anthropologists to help adopt a bottom-up approach.
If the anthropologist of today really is conducting his work and research in a critical yet understanding manner, and is able to fully portray the needs to the society he or she is working along with, then their work will not be given much credit outside of Academia.
- Riwa

# data[].attributes.headline
Maintaining the status quo of power relation

# data[].attributes.subject
Maintaining the status quo of power relation

# data[].attributes.body
Mosse’s ethnography of a ‘participatory’ rural redevelopment project in an Adivasi community in India provides a detailed account of many of the limitations inherent in this bottom-up approach. He highlights, for example, how participatory methods may tend to reproduce and reinforce existing inequalities and power relationships. He also illustrates how the need to represent the project as a successful participatory project to the funders led to failure to attend to  whether the project was involving and empowering the least powerful. Measures of participation – such as involvement of women - were judged by ticking check boxes to meet the reporting requirements of the funder with no attention paid to the limited nature of women’s participation, to inequalities in their access to project resources, or indeed to the adverse impact that some of the project agricultural ‘successes’ had on the lives of women (increased agricultural labour).

Mosse himself was employed as an ‘expert’ anthropologist on this projects.  He provides a powerful contribution to the anthropology of development but one is left with the impression that once a project’s parameter (objectives, strategy, etc) have been fixed by the donor, the anthropologist may have a limited instrumental role restricted to ensuring that the project doesn’t fail (in it’s own terms) due to lack of cultural understanding.
Jennifer

# data[].attributes.body
- Sheu Jeen

Response to Sheu Jeen by Anu- I wonder about this too! 2 weeks of reading and I feel there is so much self doubt in anthropology, something which I dont see so readily in other fields. It almost feels like anthropologists (in this case development anthropologists) are the conscience keepers of the discourse, the process, the outcomes, and therefore have some sort of a moral role to play over anything else. Does anyone else feel this way or is this just my very premature conclusion?

Response to ANU
I agree with you that anthropologists do seem to be  positioned as the conscience keepers of the process of development, particularly in this piece. I think that anthropology's reflexivity is particular to the discipline, something which seems to have developed from a conscious rejection of its roots in colonialism, and its effort to compensate for the damage its colonial incarnation did. However, I feel as though Gardner and Lewis's assertion that Anthropology is needed in order to essentially keep development in check- 'Anthropologists can play a part in ensuring that the issues of equity and participation within the 'development process' are uppermost'- is not bold enough. To me, it seems like a more admirable goal would be to infuse development practice with these values anyway (perhaps by starting reflexive conversations across disciplines, as Sheu Jeen mentions). The idea that an anthropologist would have to be present in order to ensure these things seems like evidence that the entire system of development needs to be overhauled- simply inserting an anthropologist into a project to keep an eye on things, in Gardner and Lewis's words, 'to keep the developers under control' seems a little weak. We should be bolder in demanding that developers change! 

Dora Taylor
more_vert
Anthropology OF development
Anthropology OF development
I found it interesting that Gardner and Lewis argue that anthropologists' role should rooted in questioning the processes of development, as well as the causes behind the supposed need for it. In this sense, they're implying that the focus should be on anthropology OF development. However, they phrase this in terms of there still being 'an important role for anthropologists working WITHIN development.' I.e. The former has now become an integral form of the latter. 
- Bea

Sheu Jeen's response to Bea:
This is an interesting observation. The semantics sometimes confuses me, but I am trying to understand this by looking at the anthropology OF development as being the knowledge (theories, critiques that anthropologists can bring to the table). Whereas anthropology WITHIN/IN development as the action (the role in working within the practice to drive change at different levels, "involved" or activist anthropology). Not sure if this makes sense to others...
more_vert
Response to Maria's post
Response to Maria's post
  I agree with Maria’s point of view. Both, in the past and nowadays, certain forms of development have done more harm than good. Many projects failed despite high budgets, therefore in order to build a new vision, more anthropological work is required to provide insight into the black box of development interventions and to redirect policy makers towards achieving the right objective: to help the less fortunate to thrive, therefore eradicating all sorts of labels- first world, third world, developed, underdeveloped etc. 
Stefania 
more_vert
Twins indeed
Twins indeed
Reading both Ferguson and Gardner and Lewis, it became apparent that anthropology and development can work to overcome their combined issues. 
When looking at anthropology historically, it began as armchair scholars and only got to the field thanks to colonialism and missionaries. This alone could explain the ethnocentrisim found in the discipline despite the countless efforts to criticise and analyse and come up with solutions. Whilst we have moved far away from how we started, and have managed to overcome many of our own limitations. It is still difficult to accept that an anthropologist knows what he or she is talking about, especially for other sciences, whether politics or development. All these notions are, to a certain extent, interconnected, which proves more difficult for anthropologists to help adopt a bottom-up approach. 
If the anthropologist of today really is conducting his work and research in a critical yet understanding manner, and is able to fully portray the needs to the society he or she is working along with, then their work will not be given much credit outside of Academia. 
more_vert

add
Chambers, Can we Know  Better?
more_vert
Is anyone able to ac
Is anyone able to access this article? I couldn't, including the link sent by Catherine on Moodle
more_vert
I have the same prob
I have the same problem 
more_vert
does this work?
does this work?
https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/20.500.12413/14757/Can_We_Know_Better_Reflections_for_Development.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
more_vert
Yes - i was able to access this link now!
Yes - i was able to access this link now!
more_vert
Perfect. Thank you  
Perfect. Thank you  
more_vert
Upper vs Lower
Upper vs Lower
While I enjoyed this insightful piece (partly due to the non-technical language), I find a problem with the way Chambers distinguishes between “upper” and “lower”. I understand that he is putting forth a rhetorical question here, but isn’t it starting off fundamentally on the wrong foot of positionality if right from the beginning we are already thinking of ourselves (practitioners, professionals, experts) as “upper”, and others as "lower"? And while it may seem like a good approach of reflexiveness and recognising our power and biases, if one is not careful with such binaries we could find ourselves perpetuating the neo-colonial development discourse: North vs South, developed vs underdeveloped, modern vs backward?
- Sheu Jeen
more_vert

add
Cornwall, Whose Voices?
more_vert
From daily to global
From daily to global
It is very interesting how the author highlights the importance of “diversity of experiences and interaction of daily life” and how it is absolutely relevant, and from my point of view, necessary, in order to raise “gender” actions and thus shake hierarchies and power relations. I definitely think, we should address all dimensions of a person when talking about power and “gender”; from the relationship with oneself, with our families, work dynamics, in our city, in our country, in our region, and on the planet, all equally important. - María Mónica 

Response by Priyanka-
I completely agree with Maria's point. The social systems dynamic is more complicated and nuanced. Even within categories of gender women of different age, role, etc. have different needs and behave differently  based on who they are, where they come from, their existing circumstance and who they are interacting with in the moment. This is exactly what is highlighted by social cognition theories of perception in psychology. Output behaviour is not just one-dimensional, but is influenced by pre existing schemas, immediate context, social power position, interrelation to targets of interaction and even the persons biological state at the moment. All of which are dynamic and fluid with the potential for change from moment to moment basis. 
more_vert
Categorization and Oversimplication
Categorization and Oversimplication
The part from Cornwall's article that I found most profound is where he highlights how top down categorisation of target groups even the minority/ excluded/underrepresented still leads to an oversimplification of the target audience. Making one question whether despite the effort of being gender sensitive and gender neutral and gender representative, is the research or developmental model actually doing so? This is especially prominent where he highlights how younger women are often discouraged from being part of meetings due to patriarchal gender norms enforced on them by elderly women in their immediate surrounding. There is an existence of  subcategories within the category of gender as well. 2 years back I was part of a research team documenting why girls drop out of schools. We too found a similar pattern of observations where the mother and elderly women in the neighbourhood were the most vocal in discouraging the girl from going to school and the fathers in contradiction encouraging the girls to study but scared of their wives and societal norms giving in. This was a finding that questioned the hypothesis that the father is the decision maker and preventing the girls education. However when the research findings (that what's happening on ground is more nuanced and complicated, and it's not just the father's responsibility to educate the girl) were taken back to the top management, the schematised categorisation of perceiving women as the victimised gender lead them to refuse to acknowledge that the mother too could be playing a negative role.
more_vert
Categorization and oversimplification
Categorization and oversimplification
I found Cornwall’s argument very interesting, where she talked about GAD potentially being used as another superimposing structural model, that approaches gender-based development issues from particular preconceived frames of reference. This process can create highly essentialised images of gender and power, equating ‘gender’ with ‘women’s issues’. If not used effectively within development, ‘participation’ can be implemented in tokenistic ways by the elites, rather than being used to actually dismantle and challenge globalised structures of dominance and subordination, that in turn can be used to oppress marginal men. Participatory methods should therefore be used to address the ‘differences within’ societies, in a way that privileges the immanent over the imminent. It is not enough to simply allow the voices of the silenced to be heard, but participatory dev. should enable them to become co-producers of knowledge and take control of their own development, transforming the structures that contribute to their powerlessness.
Izzi B
more_vert
Cornwall does a fant
Cornwall does a fantastic job of critiquing participatory techniques as tools of research / development, by compared it to GAD approaches. It definitely makes you think about representations, voices, influence, and also the tokenism associated with it. I enjoyed reading about the "politics" of a "technical" process.
-Anu-
more_vert

add
Mosse, Godess and the PRA
more_vert
Voicing the concerns of the poor?
Voicing the concerns of the poor?
In this chapter of Mosse’s book he recounts and analyses the effectiveness of using PRA to voice the needs of the poor members of society in a Bhil village in India. Although concluding that PRA did allow some liberation for villagers to reflect on their practises, overall he sees it as another tactic (maybe not as purposeful as this?) to appease donors and ‘complete the goals’ of the project outline,  in turn (and by) not sufficiently voicing the needs of the poor. 

Powerful villagers often became those who took control over projects, leading to the exertion and emphasis of already existing local power dynamics. The form of the meetings being both public and focused on linguistic expression, also posed an issue. The chance of marginalised members of society contributing linguistically and in a public space, particularly women (due to hierarchies and condemned to express knowledge), was small. Those whose voices needed to be heard most desperately, were missed. 

A more explicit way the poor members are silenced, but maybe not one assumed at first glance, is by project leaders picking local participants who already possessed the characteristics that the project aimed to create. This guaranteed a measure of ‘success’, something so imperative for development projects (to keep up funding etc.). The project leaders are so determined to complete the ‘aims’ and tick boxes in order to satisfy the donors, they actually go back on the true goals of the project: to alleviate poverty. Mosse therefore demonstrates how PRA does not always guarantee empowerment of the poor and can in fact lead to the opposite. 
Emma N

more_vert
Too idealistic?
Too idealistic?
It was fascinating for me (a Development newbie) to read this piece following Chamber’s. The latter reads so optimistically that I couldn’t help but feel positive (if not slightly inundated) reading about the seemingly infinite possibilities/combinations/methods of PMs, PRAs, ICTs etc. Mosse offers a more sobering account of the myriad challenges on the ground, however. For instance, where Chamber’s piece includes that we should consider empowerment a ‘moving target,’ whereby changing goals should be taken as a positive sign, Mosse likens this constant need for more to a ‘project-wide anxiety’ to ‘keep up momentum’ out of fear of losing the interest of villagers whose trust they had just gained. 
 
In the piece, Mosse also explores Chamber’s ‘Who’ and ‘Whose’ within the context of the Bhil village, which for the most part are the more influential/powerful villagers (and also, lowkey, the ‘rendering technical’/budget/organisational system of IBRFP). In addition to this, privilege is awarded to jankars, those especially compliant to development objectives. 
 
What I understood by reading both pieces however that it may be easy to idealise or appreciate these various methods (theoretically or not), but by offering villagers alien/imported tools as the sole means of communication, is participatory development – even if partially ‘liberating’ -  just a way of controlling agency and outcomes? 
-        Ayesha B

more_vert
The 'poor' and the 'local'
The 'poor' and the 'local'
I really enjoyed this chapter; it was a great piece of ethnography to accompany the other more theoretical articles that I read. One thing which I found particularly important was Mosse's unpicking of the differences within groups of 'local', 'poor' people. These words, in the other chapters and in development in general, seem to assume a homogenous identity for people within a particular village. What David Mosse does so well here is show how 'local knowledge' is not one thing- different people within the same locale have different priorities and needs, and hierarchies based on wealth, status and gender mediate whose needs are vocalised and prioritised within the PRAs, and who became more actively involved in the projects- 'in the main, the 'active' were the better-endowed members of village society.' 
DORA

more_vert
Maintaining the status quo of power relation
Maintaining the status quo of power relation
Mosse’s ethnography of a ‘participatory’ rural redevelopment project in an Adivasi community in India provides a detailed account of many of the limitations inherent in this bottom-up approach. He highlights, for example, how participatory methods may tend to reproduce and reinforce existing inequalities and power relationships. He also illustrates how the need to represent the project as a successful participatory project to the funders led to failure to attend to  whether the project was involving and empowering the least powerful. Measures of participation – such as involvement of women - were judged by ticking check boxes to meet the reporting requirements of the funder with no attention paid to the limited nature of women’s participation, to inequalities in their access to project resources, or indeed to the adverse impact that some of the project agricultural ‘successes’ had on the lives of women (increased agricultural labour). 
 
Mosse himself was employed as an ‘expert’ anthropologist on this projects.  He provides a powerful contribution to the anthropology of development but one is left with the impression that once a project’s parameter (objectives, strategy, etc) have been fixed by the donor, the anthropologist may have a limited instrumental role restricted to ensuring that the project doesn’t fail (in it’s own terms) due to lack of cultural understanding. 
Jennifer
more_vert

add
Lecture
more_vert
Race and representation in storytelling
Race and representation in storytelling
Not a question but just for sharing, I came across an interesting article on "de-colonising" development communications and stories:
https://www.bond.org.uk/news/2020/09/race-and-representation-in-ngo-storytelling-responses-to-5-frequently-asked-questions
-Sheu Jeen
more_vert

add

# data[].attributes.body
The anthropologist should be the “trained sceptic” and work within development to focus on the human needs rather than the technical element of any project.  Play an active positive role participating and engaging with all sides including the development agency. Engage with all those involved in the project to learn and feedback what their expectations and perceived roles are. Challenge the structures and politics and provide alternatives. Engage with people to produce case studies and assess the impacts of change. These may highlight gaps in what the data can show such as impacts and side issues the main project may exacerbate or cause. Talk to those whose voices are being heard and work to change the discourse to focus on the people who need it. Monitor and assess the changes and power dynamic structures and shifts highlighting where this is likely to cause issues.

Take a long term view and develop the skills of local people and NGOs to continue to monitor the project and its impacts. Create the next generation of anthropologists.

# data[].attributes.headline
How Anthropology can assist with Development

# data[].attributes.subject
How Anthropology can assist with Development

# data[].attributes.body
In response to Gardner and Lewis, I got the impression that they discussed the role anthropology can play in development and the insight it provides. They discuss  how anthropology can be used to challenge discourses within  development, which often have colonial roots and what is considered ‘developed’ and ‘to be developed’; in addition to the binary opposition between the indigenous/traditional thought and the scientific/modern, which reproduce assumptions of development, that anthropologist encourages to be criticised. This is similar to Foucault’s poststructuralist thought that discourses reproduce power relations, because Anthropology sets out to challenge such discourses, especially as the language used to discuss 3rd world countries in the context of development is not neutral and reproduces unequal power relationships. Also, Gardner and Lewis discuss how anthropology can assist developers in improving their work by considering how their involvement may be problematic. For example, being aware how western researchers and practitioners can undermine the work of local workers, thus need to be responsible. This is an important consideration as practitioners and developers can more likely than not, be unaware of their involvement can have a negative outcome.

+Phoebe

# data[].attributes.body
These works of Escobar in 1990s have shown his intellectual insights about Occitentalism-oriented 'development', especially for deconstructing it. An important issue has been mentioned a lot is for finding the alternative way in face of 'development',  I am wandering that, where is it and how to find it? I found that Escobar like to say to hear the voice from local people of the Third World. However, if the modernised economy-oriented accounts about development have been already the 'mainstream' idea around the world, whether the majority of population of Third World are still holding locally traditional sociocultural-constructed ideas about 'being better' (just another alternative word of development came up into my mind). I think on the one hand, it is arbitrary for denying the benefits carried by modernised development, and probably, most parts of the world have been influenced by it; on the other hand, each local social milieu has still held their specific primordial references. Therefore, by considering the justification of both modernised development and diversified societies of Third World, it is better to ask that how could 'development' be transformed, rather than be substituted.

Bo Yang

# data[].attributes.body
I found Cornwall's paper to bring up some excellent points of the possible issues that can arise between 'participation' and 'gender'.

One that stood out to me in particular was how the views and assumptions of facilitators from development institutions might actually limit women's own agencies. Cornwall gave an example of a facilitator rejecting proposals from a women's committee that they believed reinforced existing gender roles. It seems that even after women are given a place to voice their views, as long as these do not fit within the ideals of "Western Feminism" they are discounted, and women's voices are still not heard.

Claire Bate-Roullin

I agree, this was also very interesting for me. I think it's important to note that such disagreements exist within the framework of Western Feminism itself - even the 'imposing' set of values is nuanced and complex. Many western women feel (and are) excluded by mainstream feminism. We shouldn't fall into the trap of presenting 'western feminism' as a unified ideology.
- Maria

# data[].attributes.headline
The roles of Anthropology in Development

# data[].attributes.subject
The roles of Anthropology in Development

# data[].attributes.body
It was very interesting to see how Gardner and Lewis explained the roles of Anthropologists in Development field because I personally think, and sometimes people around me say, that how professional anthropologists can contribute to the society and folks especially in development projects. Gardner and Lewis mentioned that it is difficult for anthropologists to concerns on what terms to get involved in development work however they can play essential roles in order to question generalized assumptions that we might draw from our own (In many cases, Westernized?) culture and try to apply elsewhere, and to recall  the various alternatives which are existing in other cultures.
Moreover, it is not the main theme Gardner and Lewis were trying to explain but I really like how they described the anthropologists as  those who likely to concentrate on the ‘micro level’ and on face-to-face relations and called as 'trained sceptics' It is one of the example that we cannot implement development projects without either of them, development practitioner and anthropologists.

- Ayaka

# data[].attributes.body
Quick note from a 1968er - so quite  a heavy legacy.  As we are on positionality, I was born the year of freedom revolution and just before landing on the moon so certain things stick around (but my nephew tells me what a meme is).  And I am an economist and a researcher (have been an academic in the past) so this also constitutes heavy baggage.   There are very wide rifts between theoretical economics and  'practice' in economics and in my opinion this rift appears everywhere continuously, but what is curious, when theory is used to justify interventions (in development in particular) the unison voice springs up and everyone goes back to common views, whilst the harsh debates are kept somehow at bay.  So I think the same applies.   Although there are also places where 'dissenters' have managed to entre the space of official policy, this was again - always within ranks of institutional capture.  I am thinking about an agency in the UK which has been nicknamed the 'Nudge Unit'.   But then in other circumstances, what we call 'bottom up' has been fundamental and it went off independently from theoretical push,  the academia came in to 'document' posthumously and some use of replication has been made though it has never really picked up elsewhere. I am thinking about some theories in industrial organisation for example.  The point here being -  institutional capture is burocratic,  I do not think anthropology lends itself to burocratisation by nature,  so to enter the wheels of institutions, anthropology has had to change its nature.  This process seems to me in common with other disciplines
.

# data[].attributes.body
On Hegemony and Discourse – Moustafa Yamada

Escobar maintains a critical to development and the involvement of anthropology in reproducing the hegemony. While he argues that anthropology of and in development were divided into camps that are neutral, with or against involvement, for Escobar involvement means reproduction of the development discourse and participation in the reduction of development subjects to categories and constructs upon which power is exercised to be shaped in the form of the (Western) modern subject. For Escobar, ‘development’ is what Orientalism is for Said, a discourse that place the nonwestern in a specific temporal state, which used to measure the progress of the Western modern subject, it is a discourse of power that silences the politics at play, treats ‘underdevelopment’ as an abnormality that needs to be fixed by the Western ‘Savior’. Hence, Escobar raises the question of “the role of the intellectual in the postcolonial world.” In this sense, what anthropologists can do is to shed light on social movements, highlight hegemony and raise questions on the power dynamics at play.

# data[].attributes.headline
The difference between the ethnographer and the activist

# data[].attributes.subject
The difference between the ethnographer and the activist

# data[].attributes.body
What stands out to me is the line between activism and representation - and this raises the question whether civil engagement is at odds with the duties of representation in the theory - or just in the practice.   Escobar draws out the cultural subtleties of 'imperialism' whereby the assumption that 'the good of the poor' should inform action. Again, this is back to the evangelical mission that was brought up in Lesson 1 and in my view, constitutes the common line evangelism - imperialism  and the new modern declinations of the 'discoursive operations' .     Complicated matter as the divisions are not clear cut (think about revolutionary priests in Latin America in the 60s and 70s) . I think Escobar makes an important call in the role of independence and I am not sure his distinction is just about independent anthropologists and institutional anthropologists, It seems to me more complex than this.   lots of themes to explore

# data[].attributes.body
For me, their were two main takeaways from this article:

Firstly, that anthropologists are often presented with a false choice when the options are either the supposed ‘ivory tower’ of academic work and the ‘real-life’ world of applied anthro in development organisations, with the latter often entailing some kind of ethical or methodological compromise. Escobar argues that this is needn’t be the case, and that the assumptions this dichotomy rests on are invalid. Not engaging with development organisations is not equal to ‘doing nothing’, and the idea that anthropologists are best attempting to vitiate the worst impacts of development projects from the inside simply accepts the premise that this style of intervention is inevitable, and there is no alternative. Escobar, in fact, points to a lot of alternatives in his conclusion (such as grassroots organisations, as Bea mentioned in a previous post)!

Secondly, the need to be ‘aware of the conditions of production’ of anthropological knowledge, and how anthropologists have often been complicit in the unquestioned reproduction of certain paradigms (e.g. modernization). Escobar’s point about the advantages of anthropological method being rendered void when pressed into service of certain international institutions was well made, and his example of the funding models of such institutions forcing anthropologists to ‘market’ themselves and justify their work in terms of a pre-established notion of ‘utility’ had me thinking about the trajectory of higher education more generally - is this not increasingly become the case across the board, with everything examined according to ‘impact frameworks’ and the like?

- Gareth Bromley

Response
I struggle to find answers in Escobar’s work as to what anthropologists should do. He appears to be proposing ‘finding new ways of listening to voices’ in the ‘Third  World’, and suggesting that anthropologists should be working to ‘shift discourse’ . The former sounds good on paper, but how do you do it? And the latter sounds fine but where and how do you achieve this - surely it has to happen by engaging with development practice in some way. Perhaps radicalising anthropologist is a first step, but what next?

# data[].attributes.headline
On Hegemony and Discourse – Moustafa Yamada

# data[].attributes.subject
On Hegemony and Discourse – Moustafa Yamada

# data[].attributes.body
Escobar maintains a critical to development and the involvement of anthropology in reproducing the hegemony. While he argues that anthropology of and in development were divided into camps that are neutral, with or against involvement, for Escobar involvement means reproduction of the development discourse and participation in the reduction of development subjects to categories and constructs upon which power is exercised to be shaped in the form of the (Western) modern subject. For Escobar, ‘development’ is what Orientalism is for Said, a discourse that place the nonwestern in a specific temporal state, which used to measure the progress of the Western modern subject, it is a discourse of power that silences the politics at play, treats ‘underdevelopment’ as an abnormality that needs to be fixed by the Western ‘Savior’. Hence, Escobar raises the question of “the role of the intellectual in the postcolonial world.” In this sense, what anthropologists can do is to shed light on social movements, highlight hegemony and raise questions on the power dynamics at play.

# data[].attributes.body
In the making and marketing of development anthropology Escobar writes 'as practised today development is social and cultural domination'. This was written in 1991, since then how far have the institutions responsible been challenged for establishing this hegemonic order and how much has participatory development really shed the top-down, technical strategies that it claims to transcend?

EP

# data[].attributes.body
The idea that post-modernism can cause political apathy particularly resonated with me. Whilst the idea of post-modernism is appealing in a number of ways (it is universal, complete, can explain the totality of human experience), perhaps it does not translate well into a practice. It does not reflect our day-to-day life and experiences. Could we consider post-modernism a theoretical venture, and organise our political and social activities around a different framework, with the underlying understanding that much (or all) of that in which we participate is constructed? I think this is what Garner and Lewis are suggesting, a more pick-and-mix approach. But is this actually possible? - Maria

# data[].attributes.body
Ferguson's ideas are still relevant, in my opinion, even though they are written +20 years ago. Ferguson's main argument about anthropology and development being closely linked I find very interesting and convincing. The title of the article really represents what Ferguson is arguing in the text, that these two terms are almost identical but also have difference. I liked how he used this metaphor of the 'evil twin'.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUESiW-zdTQ

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNYemuiAOfU&t=652s

# data[].attributes.headline
How Europe’s agricultural policy hurts Africa | DW Documentary

# data[].attributes.subject
How Europe’s agricultural policy hurts Africa | DW Documentary

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv3hSNhRaNU&t=1427s

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aWdFNNNrmU&t=2109s

# data[].attributes.headline
Questioning the 'disciplinary identity of anthropology itself'

# data[].attributes.subject
Questioning the 'disciplinary identity of anthropology itself'

# data[].attributes.body
I found really interesting Ferguson's point that to truly transform the development discourse, we may need to rethink and transform anthropology. I had been thinking about the way anthropology, despite all of its reflexivity after the 'crisis of representation', is still stuck in old ideas about what constitutes 'proper' anthropological fieldwork (a long period of time spent in a far, 'exotic' and 'simple' society that still lives in 'traditional' ways, containing suffering/hardship). It is as if anthropologists spent all that time talking about the problematic aspects of the discipline and tweaking the way they represented the communities they studied almost as a way to 'confess' and not have to feel guilty anymore, and then continued to reproduce the ideas they had denounced as problematic. Of course, it is not as bad as before, but as Ferguson argues, the practice of anthropologists still implicitly perpetuates the dichotomy of 'underdeveloped, exotic, traditional' societies vs. 'developed, civilised, modern' societies.
- Mounia

response to Mounia

I completely agree. I have always thought that perhaps anthropology's best feature is its reflexivity, and the ability to self-critique, I mean, where else do you study a discipline by criticising its "founding fathers" so early on? However, as Ferguson put, anthropology's ability to self-critique has not fed so strongly into other disciplines inspired (created?) in anthropology's image.  Development as the "evil twin" of anthropology is just this, the colonial veranda-anthropologists may have entered the village now, but they are leading a group of NGO-tshirted development professionals in their wake making the same mistakes over again.

The idea you bring up of a confession to absolve our historical sins really hits me, it is so palpable in critique that "we" now know better, but then "we" go on to study the most "exotic" parts of even western/our local cultures to make "good" anthropology all over agin. Where critique does not make change it is simply lip service to placate naysayers. Maybe anthropology (and development), like other subjects now rendered racist or exploitative, the study of skull shape and criminality (phrenology) for one, should simply be a thing of the past. An embarrassing, but educational, slip up in our past while we abandon our elitist search to classify everything as lesser.
-Flora LH

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOqHJOlPSDw

# data[].attributes.headline
If Voluntourists Talked About North America

# data[].attributes.subject
If Voluntourists Talked About North America

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8GZjZTZrWA

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/12959318/british-woman-adopts-14-orphans-gap-year-africa/

this woman graduated from SOAS with a degree in development studies and now has adopted 14 children in Tanzania...

Response by Mahali: Wow, so bizarre how she even directly references white saviorism and the problematic nature of voluntourism yet fails to see how they are present in her own actions. Again makes me think of the other video shown "If Voluntourists Talked About North America": imagine a 26 year old Tanzanian woman moves to the UK and suddenly decides to become the mother of 14 orphans. I'm sure she would be met with more confusion and criticism than praise, as this young British woman seems to be receiving. Also curious to think about why she thought adopting/taking primary responsibility for these young boys would be the only or best way of supporting them, when she clearly has the financial means to support them through other channels.

# data[].attributes.body
What we talked in class about the performative power of discourses made me think of Nigerian author Chimamanda Adichie and her video “the danger of a single story”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9Ihs241zeg&t=507s. She explains how the single story told about Africa, which is one of catastrophe, leads to western people look at her with “condescending pity” even though she comes from a middle class family -she says that: “if all I knew about Africa was from popular images, I too would think that Africa was a place of beautiful landscapes, beautiful animals and uncomprehensible people, fighting senseless wars, dying of poverty and AIDS, unable to speak for themselves and waiting to be saved by a kind white foreigner”. The same way Edward Said would claim that Orientalism was the “single story” through which the West envisioned (and infantilized) the “Oriental world” as a place that needed to be intervene, the actual discourse about Africa -and other “developing” parts of the world- is encouraging us to think about the continent as a place that needs to be “saved” because its own people don’t know how to do it. This is the real danger of some NGOs/development speeches, that they reduce to economic terms the humanity of these countries until vanishing it. Then, “poverty” or “underdevelopment” becomes a way to designate more than just lack of material wealth, it becomes a metonymy that refers also to poverty of the mind, of the soul… poor people are poor in abilities, values, emotions, etc. “Discourse prefigures action” so how can we expect that any action taken towards development is ok when the discourse it is based on is so terribly biased? How can we change the discourses? What would be the effect of looking beyond the “single story”? Would we still think of the world in terms of “saviors” and “in-need”?  - Laura Torres

Response to Laura:
I agree that changing the discourses surrounding development is essential, as they shape all possible action. I do think that looking beyound the 'single story' could allow us to change the way we perceive 'beneficiary' communities and the relationships between them and development actors. However, I found myself wondering if that would be enough. Sure, it is necessary to change the development discourse as well as its methods, allowing for different types of participation. But what about structures of development? Can practice, and power relations, really change if development is implemented by the same institutions? Governments, for example, have their own agendas, and I don't believe that the development initiatives they lead are truly for the benefit of 'beneficiary' communities. So can we really expect practice to change in a way that truly gives power to these communities if that is not in governments', or other donors' interest? Does the development sector need more fundamental restructuring?
- Mounia

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y84AjR4Ic50

# data[].attributes.body
Thanks for the great presentation and providing all these links!!

# data[].attributes.body
I was inspired and hopeful when reading about Redd Barna's Uganda's participatory development project where they combined their attention to difference, specifically to issues of gender and generation, with community-wide participatory planning.

The project ticks many boxes. From the way they did their initial consultation in smaller groups; each group generating their own priorities and then coming together as a community to create an action plan for both individuals and the community group; their agility in responding to the feedback or research and recognising the excluded voices, implementing a longer engagement and five-stage planning process to their project; the interventions and advocacy implemented as a response to the conflicts that emerged from the project and those that were effected.

But in Cornwalls reflection of the project Cornwall makes a very valid point, one that as anthropologists we must always be aware of, our "External" influences on a project.

"While their focus on age and gender has proven a powerful way to initiate change, it also masked other differences, notably economic differences. Kabeer�s point about the terms on which exclusion is addressed is
significant. Just as dividing communities along externally-defined axes of difference can obscure the intersections between these and other differences, it may take for granted forms of commonality that fail to match with people�s own concerns, connections and agendas. This raises questions about the salience of a focus on particular axes of difference, such as gender, rather than on dimensions and positions of powerlessness."

A project that I felt was seemingly leaning towards being bottom up, pushes over to top down.

- Natasha

# data[].attributes.body
Conscious of the fact that this is a 'development' module - but all this to me suddenly looks like we are still grappling with the concept of 'development'. Should we really not just step away from this way of seeing things? After all, what is it that development agencies do? Health - governance of the productive environment - civil and legal frameworks - political representation - public services - education [non exhaustive list] - and if the issue is that the development recipe is all about technicalisation of practices, would it just be that anthropologists should walk away and head towards slicing the issues without keeping the framework of the machine? I am just thinking - 'non-development' anthropology is about why people think in a certain way and for example when I think about anthropology of materiality, I cannot think of an anthropologist that looks at what should be done to change the way people go about procuring the materialities that are involved in the process? And yet, when 'development' comes up, we suddenly think that that is the only issue worth exploring?

# data[].attributes.body
First, there is no doubt that a progressivist and evolutionist definition of development is to be criticized and deconstructed. Ferguson also pointed that such development discourse is connected with ideologies of colonialism, which uses metaphor fusing development with maturation of an organism or person.

When it comes to the modern/nonmodern, development/underdevelopment dichotomy, anthropologists' field seems always to be the latter. And anthropology theories has become a weapon to deconstruct such discourse. The anthropologists are always good at show how unique, how distinguishing a culture is, and how such uniqueness should not be integrated into a linear development story. Such local and cultural relativism has helped anthropologists defend against modernization theories, but it also rooted an estrangement between development and anthropology. As Ferguson stated that "there is an uncomfortable intimacy between anthropology and development", maybe it's because anthropology is actually more intimate with underdevelopment, while at the same time it's impossible to think about underdevelopment as irrelevant with development. Anthropology has not yet find its own way to get beyond such dichotomy.

With the introduction of neo-Marxism into anthropology, the relationship between different cultures, and even a politically and economically integrated "World System" has become an essential background for us to analyse the development/underdevelopment dichotomy in a dynamic approach and made it possible to get beyond it. However, for Ferguson, it seems that the neo-Marxism approach is still not an anthropologically acceptable way to embrace development, and the final point lied on his rejection of a neo-Marxist linear, teleological progression.

About the future of anthropology of development, his conclusion of "transforming the shapes of our disciplinary knowledges" left me some more specific questions: how to defend the uniqueness of each culture under an interconnected cultural background (maybe an anthropological version of local versus global) and if we should always embrace a pluralism and non-linear position unconditionally, or it is also a dogma of anthropology. For me, whether the progression is linear or not is linked to the uneven autonomy and the power relationships between different communities.

Zhenyuan Fang

# data[].attributes.headline
Anthropologists can aid the potential myopia of development

# data[].attributes.subject
Anthropologists can aid the potential myopia of development

# data[].attributes.body
It was reassuring to read the same thing I came forward with a few weeks ago during a tutorial when it had been asked, how could development be steered in the correct direction. I suggested without knowing anything about the real-world practices, that anthropologists could provide a solution by exploring the actual needs of peoples in the region targeted by future development. It turns out that Gardner and Lewis thought the same; they explain that the attributes of anthropologists make them the perfect candidates for this purpose. An anthropologists will by no means be a "fly in-fly out expert", which is the role to be avoided when making judgements about the aims of a certain development package. Anthropologists never neglect the insignificant, go above and beyond, also they always expect things to be more complicated than they seem. The product of these mindsets enables them to reach to the bottom of the provided information, and extract what is actually significant. With the help of them, the actors should be able to effectuate such development-related projects which take into consideration the voices of the ones in need, if not fully, than for sure to a way greater extent than the traditional methods would be able to. One caveat the authors raise is the anthropologists to be able to act as links between beneficiary groups of development, and actors of development. This implies that they have to be able to communicate the subjective and potentially too detailed findings of their research in a short and quantitative way towards the actors, so that they can understand.

Andrew

# data[].attributes.headline
The complex relationship of anthropology and its sub-discipline

# data[].attributes.subject
The complex relationship of anthropology and its sub-discipline

# data[].attributes.body
There lies great contradiction in the concept of development anthropology itself, as it represents two fields, the representatives of which can hardly coexist. Relevant individuals within academic anthropology think that development lacks authenticity as it aims to help the "primitive" "emerge" from their invaluable lives and take their seat among the nations which development regards as ones being on the right path. They think that these peripheral cultures (in the economic sense) deserve not to be labeled as underdeveloped, and development should take into consideration that different cultures might flourish on differently constructed development paths. Social change should not become linked with development, as one should not feel like they have the authority to decide a culture's course; this would lead to a world way too homogenous in terms of its cultures for anthropologists to find as interesting as our current one.
Besides that, academic anthropology's representatives do not only express their counter-arguments towards development, but towards the subfield of their discipline as well, namely development anthropology, referred to as "Anthropology's Evil Twin" in this source. They argue that this sub-discipline does not portray the methods and approach of "mainstream anthropological theory", and for example Edmund Leach goes as far as considering it "neo-colonialism".
On the other hand, development anthropology does provide a response which is to be considered. It highlights that academic anthropology in some sense conserves the underdevelopment of the nations which are in the focus of the research, as anthropologists cherish the way things are in these communities, and believe that these conditions should be sacred in order to be prone to further research. Besides it raises awareness that there exists a perspective in which academic anthropology is too theoretical, and lacks the real-world solutions for global tragedies, and hardships of the communities being observed by its representatives.
I honestly don't know, which page I am on. My main point is how interesting this debate is between the two schools of anthropologies, and how difficult is it to settle on a compromise.

Andrew

# data[].attributes.body
Gardner and Lewis examine this transitional idea of development to breach out the various assumptions created that assert boundaries between the North and the South. This explicit language , cultural differences exist not due to the conversion of change but due to history and the constant imitation of a dominant rule. Ferguson's approach to the presence of a "dominative grid" is something that strikes me to comprehend where do we as people in this developing world fall on this grid ? What really defines a destitute region and how does it fit in this grid? I agree with Gardner and Lewis as they state Escobar's opinion on how the world has been stagnant and we haven't really moved past the originated idea of development. In my opinion, we have never even reached the brink of development to look beyond development as instead of scrutinizing cultures and beliefs, anthropologists should move forward by actually ameliorating the world by moving "beyond this definition of development". At present, Development discourse is central to how the world is represented and controlled by those with utmost power.

-Enakshi

# data[].attributes.body
In this chapter, Beyond Development means that there will be several standards to criticize area development. At the same time, it affects further the fieldwork around massive roles in the economy and policy.
Jiahao

# data[].attributes.body
I found this article a glimmer of hope in an otherwise disheartening discourse on development. I agree that the anthropologists involvement is not only paramount but a matter of ethical responsibility. It is very easy to critique from the sidelines but a far harder job to actively involve yourself in action. As a discipline with a unique critical lens it has the power to enact real positive change on the industry, altering its outcome and practice. What I am fundamentally still struggling with is whether this is possible within the current structures and frameworks of development. Is a deconstruction and reconstruction necessary for the anthropologists involvement to be truly effective?
- Charlotte

# data[].attributes.body
The title is the first thing that we can use to analyse the “aim” of the chapter, it attempts to show in a quick way that doing things “together” can be better, but the very first question we should ask ourselves is “Better for Who?”.
According to Chambers (2017) the “uppers” determine agendas, categories, questions and priorities, and there is no way someone can object the accuracy of this statement, but why is the upper always described as the side with knowledge even when the intention is to have a participant approach?
Even if the chapter addresses the empowerment of the “lowers” “the ones left behind”, it doesn’t really reveal that this category, besides participating into the activities or producing “participatory statistics”, can be holders of knowledge on their territories, their houses and their lives.
The western or what I can call the “us” will always have the presumption of being in the position of creating knowledge, creating new indicators, creating new participatory methodologies…but what if we stop doing that? What if we stop pretending that we are creating systems to include the lowers? This pretense is nothing but the proof that we are recreating colonial practices but with the engagement of the lowers…
Again we see the narrative of North and South…Us vs Them

-Susanna

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with you in the sense that this text did give me a glimpse of hope as well and I believe anthropology still has the chance of enacting real positive change in society, even if just with its discourses.
Anthropology of development is but an academic discipline, but it carries a positive message, it encourages its practitioners to listen to other people's point of view, to broaden their perspective, to immerse themselves in another one's concepts of life and to try to understand- really understand 'the other'.
Maybe the real development shall come from setting an example, from paving a new path that is more inclusive and more open towards everyone's uniqueness- and if that should be done through discourse mainly, to avoid any unnecessary show of power, so be it. Gardner and Lewis mention that although development can have a malicious agenda in practice; in discourse, it has kept itself pretty much unchanged for most of its history in the anthropology of development, consisting mostly of endless critiques.
Expatriate researchers can easily undermine the work of local practitioners by taking jobs or by using local workers in subordinate jobs'  they mention, which is only one of the ways in which development can be done wrong. However, with a consistent attention for these types of divergences and with new critique, anthropology can still truly enact positive change.
-Ioana Illes