Grassroots approaches and alternative politics in the Third World Escobar 1992

8/14/2019 Grassroots approaches and alternative politics in the Third World Escobar 1992

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/grassroots-approaches-and-alternative-politics-in-the-third-world-escobar-1992 1/26

411

REFLECTIONS ON

‘DEVELOPMENT’

Grassroots approaches and

alternative politics in the

Third World

Arturo Escobar

This article analyses a radical critique of the discourse of ‘development’

as a hegemonic form of representation of the Third World that has been

advanced recently by a number of Third World scholars. Although

originating in various geographical areas, the authors of this group

nevertheless share certain assumptions and concerns. Prominent among

these are the interest in local knowledge and culture as the basis forredefining representations; a critical stance with respect to established

scientific knowledge; and the defence and promotion of localized,

pluralistic grassroots movements. The call of these authors for the

dismantling of ‘develooment’ is discussed in the context of broader

questions posed

ments generally.

by thi emergence of 1980s’ and 1990s’ social move-

For 40 years now, much of Asia, Africa and Latin America has been known

as the ‘Third World’ or ‘underdeveloped’, while the price for joining the

ranks of the First, ‘developed’ world-and, ultimately, acceding to History

-has precisely been to follow the prescriptions laid down for them by

those already developed. These prescriptions took the form of Develop-

ment,’ a powerful and encompassing discourse which has ruled most social

designs and actions of those countries since the early post-World War II

period. This discourse has shaped in significant ways the modes of existence

Arturo Escobar is in the Department of Anthropology, Smith College, Northampton, MA 01063,

USA.

FUTURES June 1992 0016-3287/05411-26 @ 1992 Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd



412 Reflections on ‘Developm ent’

of Third World soc ieties, mediating in a profound sense the knowledge they

seek about themselves and their peoples, mapping their soc ial landscape,

sculpting their economies, transforming their cultures.

After 40 years, many argue, the dream is over. Development, as it waspromised in the midst of post-World War II euphoria, has not happened.

Moreover, the Third World is more underdeveloped now than when it was

initially discovered to be so. But still Development is a powerful and

hegemonic form of representation, and the Third World is still referred to as

underdeveloped, as if the most fundamental result of the discourse had

been the consolidation of its referent once and for all. Are Asia, Africa and

Latin America doomed to be thought of as underdeveloped for the decades

to come? Does not the very continued currency of the label in most of

today’s scholarly and policy circles-in the First World as much as the

Third-imply that the whole enterprise of Development is still in place and

that, despite its apparent failure, these countries have to resign themselves

to their third-class status and their dependence on the goodwill of the First

World, its multinationals and development agencies, its capital and tech-

nology, its truth?

If one were to look at Asia, Africa and Latin America today through the

eyes of North American and European history and constructs, the answer to

this question would have to be in the positive. Moreover, it would have to

be a resounding yes, so eep would be the crisis that would be detected

through those eyes, so desolate the landscape surveyed, so desperate the

problems perceived. More Development would surely be needed even to

avert, certainly to reverse, the worsening of life conditions. Yet the neces-

sity for negating this view is today greater than ever before. Rather than

continuing to accept as normal the vision of the Third World as in need of

Development, there is an acute need to assert the difference of cultures,

the relativity of history, and the plurality of perceptions. For the Third

World, this means to shake off the meanings imposed on them by the

Development discourse, to open up in a more explicit manner the possib-

ility for a different regime of truth and perception within which a new

practice of concern and ac tion would be possible.

This possibility is already emerging out of the very dynamics of soc ial

change in the Third World and elsewhere. Grassroots movements and soc ial

movements generally are appearing, and powerful critiques of Development

are also being articulated for the first time in connection with the forces.

This article reviews these trends and suggests a few items for further

discussion and research. Part I gives a succinct account of the nature of

Development as discourse. In the second part, the work of a small but

prominent group of scholars who are working out the most radical critique

of Development is presented and assessed. These authors emphasize in

their critique the role that grassroots movements are beginning to play in

the reorientation and actual dismantling of Development. The movements

they review are part of a broader set of soc ial movements which are

growing in number and importance in the Third World, and which are

contributing to redefine the nature of politics and soc ial change. In the final

section, the nature and scope of today’s soc ial movements are ana lysed,

espec ially in relation to the redefinition of Development that they might befostering and from which at the same time they grow.

FUTURES June 1992



Reflections on ‘Developm ent’ 413

Development: a dream gone sour

‘It took twenty years for two billion people to define themselves as

underdeveloped’, Ivan lllich is quoted as saying.* Problematic as this

statement may be who were those who defined themselves as under-

developed?), it captures well the essence of Development as discourse. One

may say that Development was merely the ideologica l expression of the

expansion of post-World War II capitalism; or, alternatively, it can be

argued that Development was the result of refined forms of knowledge and

greater potentialities of science and technology that could be put to the

service of the non-industrialized world. But none of these conventiona l

explanations ac counts for the concrete form that Development took, and for

the pervasive way in which it became the one and only way to think and ac t.

In short, they would be at pa ins to explain how Development became an

inescapable and totalizing domain which in turn made possible certain

states of domination.

It would be impossible to recount here the emergence of the discourse

of Development and analyse the conditions of its deployment through a

myriad of strategies and programmes. This has already been presented

elsewhere.3 To examine Development as discourse means to understand

why so many countries started to see themselves as underdeveloped in the

early post-World War II period, how to develop became for them a

fundamental problem and how, finally, whole fields of knowledge and

endless strategies were devoted to this task; in short, how they bought into

this fairy tale of Development that promised abundance and happiness for

all, and how, in doing so, embarked upon the task of un-underdeveloping

themselves by subjec ting their soc ieties to systematic and minute observa-

tions and interventions that would allow them to discover and eventually

eradicate their problems once and for all. In this way, the study of

Development as discourse is akin to Edward Said’s study of orientalism, the

production of discourses on the Orient. ‘Orientalism’, writes Said,4

can be discussed and analyzed as the corporate institution for dealing with the

Orient-dealing with it by making statements about it, authorizing views of it,

describing it, by teaching it, settling it, ruling over it: in short, Orientalism as a

Western style for dominating, restructuring and having authority over the Orient . .My contention is that without examining orientalism as a discourse we cannot

possibly understand the enormously systematic discipline by which European culture

was able to manage-and even produce-the Orient politically, sociologically,ideologically, scientifically, and imaginatively during the post-Enlightenment period.

As in the orientalist discourses examined by Said, Development has func-

tioned as a mechanism for the production and management of the Third

World in the post-war period. It has done so through the systematic

elaboration of fields of knowledge and institutions which made possible the

establishment in the Third World of forms of power through which indi-

viduals, government officials, and, sometimes, whole communities recog-

nized themselves as underdeveloped, as unfinished manifestations of a

European ideal. These fields of knowledge covered entire domains related

to Third World economies, soc ieties and cultures-from the countries’

economies and agriculture, to demography, health, education, planning,

natural resources, and so forth. They constituted a system for organizing the

FUTURES June 1992



414 Reflect ions on ‘Developmen t’

production of truth about the Third World. The knowledge so produced

made possible the exercise of power in novel ways. Conversely, once Third

World countries became the target of new mechanisms of power, their

economies, societies, and cultures were offered up as new objects ofknowledge.

The result of the functioning of this dynamic apparatus has been not

less than the mapping of the Third World, the production of the specific

social and economic configurations which we recognize today as under-

development. What characterizes a discourse such as Development is the

fact that the regime of formation of statements is carefully regulated. In fact,

only a relatively limited number of things can be said within a given

discourse. Development was characterized from the outset by certain basic

statements relating a few variables such as capital, technology and re-

sources. Once established through theories and institutionalized in practices

embodied in strategies and programmesf, this set of statements determined

what could be said, thought, imagined: it defined the space of Develop-

ment. Industrialization, family planning, the green revolution, macroeco-

nomic policy etc, all refer to the same space, all repeat in different ways the

same set of statements. But since the discourse creates endless prescrip-

tions, views, institutions, programmes and so forth, it gives the impression

of a great learning process, of constituting a vast terrain for expression and

innovati0n.j

This is clear when one reads World Bank literature, for instance; one

quickly gets bored, faced with piles of documents that repeat the same story

to the point of absurdity, even if there is always talk of complex learning

processes and improved interventions. They all repeat the same story of

capital, technology, growth, use of resources and the like. But the discourse

is so tight that one is left embarrassingly empty-handed when trying to

come up with a different view of things. This is the reason why, until

recently, it seemed impossible to get away from Development and to

conceptualize social reality differently. Moreover, anywhere one looked

what one found was the busy, repetitive, and omnipresent reality of

Development-governments designing and implementing ambitious Devel-

opment plans, institutions carrying out Development programmes in cities

and rural areas, experts studying underdevelopment and producing theories

ad nau seam pilot projects in many regions, foreign experts all over the

place, multinational corporations brought into the country in the name of

Development, and, of course, billions of dollars poured into the Third

World by an endless number of international Development institutions. In

sum, Development colonized reality, it became reality.

Philosophers have made us aware that the period or era in which we

happen to live cannot be described exhaustively, since it is from within its

rules that we speak and think, since it provides the basis for our descrip-

tions and our own history. While it makes our vision possible, it also

induces an irreducible blindness. We may be aware of regions o r fragments

of our era, but only a certain distance from it will enable us to attempt the

description of its totality as an era which has ceased to be ours. We may be

approaching this point in relation to the post-war order of Development; we

may be nearing the point at which we can delimit it as a past era, recaptureit in its otherness, establish a discontinuity with a discursive practice which

FUTURES June 1992




is about to stop ruling our experience and language. We are beginning to

detect a gap between the discursive practice of Development and a new

one, which is slowly and perhaps painfully coming into existence, but which

will establish us as different from the previous bankrupt order. Perhaps forthe first time, we can stand detached from Development and view it from

afar, so to speak, in order to understand it in its own terms, to grasp fully

the theoretical and practical contexts which have defined it, so that we will

no longer be able to say the same truths, speak the same concepts,

prescribe the same strategies. In other words, we can now undertake an

archaeology of Development.

But even if we undertake this archaeological analysis, we are left with

the problem of change. How are we to see discursive change, if we want to

see in the succession of discourses something other than the triumphal

march of reason, something other than the result of an evolutionary project

which dates of old times and the various phases of which have only come

about as increases in rational knowledge, the advancement of science, and

the gaining of historical consciousness, and moreover, if we want to see in

it precisely the possibility of other types of knowledge and reason? In what

ways, finally, can we conceptualize change if we want to take knowledge

and discourse seriously, and not merely as the epiphenomenal manifesta-

tion of a more fundamental reality, economic or otherwise, if we agree with

the fact that it is the transformation of practice and materialities that is at

stake, that is, the conformation of different domains of thinking and acting?

‘A change in the order of discourse’, said Michel Foucault in the conclusion

to The Arch aeology of Knowledge,

does not presuppose ‘new ideas’, a little invention and creativity, a differentmentality, but transformations in a practice, perhaps also in neighboring practices,

and in their common articulation. I have not denied-far from it-the possibility of

changing discourse: I have deprived the sovereignty of the subject of the exclusive

and instantaneous right to it.‘j

The philosophical justification of this kind of research can be stated well in

terms of the possibility to think reality differently, ‘to learn to what extent

the effort to think one’s own history can free thought from what it silently

thinks, and so enable it to think differently’.’ Development has been that

which silently and inevitably) determines thought in relation to the Third

World. Its transformation, of course, does not involve only statements.

Discursive formations are true practices; they are not natural but historical,

and so capable of giving place to new entities. The regime of power that

brings them into existence can give way to other regimes; power is related

to a regime of statements and visibilities but so, too, are freedoms and

transgressions, and these latter can approach a threshold beyond which

something new comes into existence. In relation to Development, this

threshold may involve a type of discourse that moves in directions other

than those of Development sciences in particular and Western science in

general; that is, a discourse that permits the inclusion of new practices,

some of which will perhaps be different from those of Development, some

of which will look pretty much the same. A discourse that alters the

threshold of scientificity associated with Development, in order to include

legitimately other types of knowledge, other kinds of experiences, other

FUTURES June 1992



416 Reflections on ‘Devetopm ent

styles of doing things; a discourse, finally, that takes into account the views

and reality of the ‘beneficiaries’ of Development, until now for the most

part its victims.

A conceptual clarification is perhaps in order. The notion of discourse,as we use it here, does not refer to the ideal, or merely to the production of

ideologies. Positivist thinking has made of language and discourse the

opposite of the real or merely its reflection; this position assumes, on the

one hand, the existence of an objective world independent of any discursive

mediation and, on the other, of discursive structures which are the pure

expression of thought, unrelated to any materiality. Discourse, in our view,

partakes of a fundamental materiality; it involves a series of material

elements and processes which articulates it on a domain of things and

through which the production of truth is organized. Discourse also articu-

lates relations between knowledge and power. It determines ways of doing

things through which the real is given shape by those who conceptualize it

and manage it. Thus we are not saying that there is no reality behind

underdevelopment-there certainly exist socioeconomic and material condi-

tions in the Third World which are extremely difficult for most people, and

the object of concern for many; but rather that what is important to

understand is how those conditions have been constructed as underdevel-

opment, and what have been the consequences of doing so; in other

words, how those conditions were integrated as problems into an institu-

tional field to be solved through foreign aid, industrialization, and the like.

We must examine not only the effects of this politics of truth, but also how

it ignores people’s conditions and oppression, and what other possibilities

might exist.

To get back to the question of change. The transformation of a

discourse entails not only the redefinition of statements-although, in the

long run, this should occur as well-but the formation of nuclei around

which new forms of power and knowledge can converge. This new nuclei

may come about in a serial manner:

The substitution of one discursive formation by another does not take place

necessarily at the level of the general statements or those which are more easily

formalizable. Only a serial method su h as the one currently used by historians

permits the construction of a new series in the vicinity of a singular point and to

search for other series that prolong it in other directions and around other points.

There is always a moment or places where series diverge and become distributed in

a new space _ a new discursive formation with new rules and series does notappear all of a sudden as a result of a new statement or creation; it appears in steps

with some things phasing out while others survive and find their place under the

new conditions.8

We see shortly how these new series are being formed and dispersed,

and how they are beginning to show signs of integration. We also discuss,

in the last part of this article, how nodal points which appear around

specific social relations may have a crucial role in the construction of new

political practices. But first we say a few more words about how discourses

change and undergo transformations.

What best defines a discursive transformation is the breakdown of the

basic organization of the discourse, that is, the modification of the relations

among the basic set of statements that define the discourse, the appearance

FUTURES June 1992



Reflect ions on ‘Developmen t’ 417

of new rules of formation of statements and visibilities; this may or may not

entail new objects, concepts, and theoretical approaches; it may be accom-

panied by a shift in the importance occupied by given objects or concepts;

it may even be marked by the reappearance of an older concept, longthought to have gone into permanent oblivion. The emergence of a new

formation may be the result of a slow process, but it may also happen with

relative rapidity. One should then look for the kinds of transformation that a

new historical situation, such as the one we are living today, may produce

in the system of formation of the existing discourses of truth; and one must

look, more concretely, at how that new historical situation changes what

may be given as an object to discourse, how elements are laid down for a

new system of formation of objects, concepts, and so on, and how, finally,

the relations between the discourse Development) and other formations

-such as political systems, the international economy, the state, and the

social sciences-are altered.It would serve no purpose to speculate in the abstract about how this

process of transformation might take place, beyond giving a few general

guidelines for the analysis. But it is pertinent to scan the present landscape

of Development afternatives and, with these guidelines in mind, detect and

analyse those which seem more hopeful for bringing about a new reality.

We have hinted at the existence of a more or less coherent body of work

that highlights the role of grassroots movements, local knowledge, and

popular power in transforming Development. Indeed, the authors involved

with this trend state that they are not interested in Development alternat-

ives, but rather in alternatives to Development. In the following section we

look briefly at the work of these authors before placing them, in the last

section, in the broader context of new social movements and the new

politics they are bringing into existence.

Alternatives to Development and grassroots movements

New ‘we’s’ in the making

By now, ‘we’ are ready to present a very good case against development. In addition

to our own experience, we can use the extensive documentation and literature

produced by expert establishments around the world, including the United Nations

and other international institutions. These materials, however, do not derive any

coherent and pertinent conclusions from the facts they document and examine. Foryears, the literature arrived at the analytical conclusion that a missing factor or tool,

or the perverse, corrupt, or inefficient use of something, could explain the damage

done by development to people and their environment. These ‘analyses’ have come

to a dead end. They move in a vicious circle, like a dog chasing its tail. The

conclusions of some studies are the premises of others and so on. Every develop-

ment ‘strategy’ or ‘approach’ has been tested, again and again, under widely

different conditions but with the same frustrating results. When ‘we’ talk about the

archaeology of the development myth, assuming that its cycle and promises are over,

‘we’ are just offering a different insight about known facts, in the context of our own

shared experience. We are not using our own eyes and noses, not those of the

experts.9

Who are the ‘we’ that Gustav0 Esteva is talking about? Who is this new ‘we’,

this new group in the making ? In what ways, or for what reasons, is it

FUTURES June 992



418 Reflections on ‘Developm ent

important that we listen to this ‘we’, and is it true that, as they say, the

present crisis is providing peasants and others all the different ‘we’s’) the

opportunity to dismantle Development? ‘But who are “we”?‘, asks Esteva

himself, speaking about the ‘trouble of being a “we”‘:

Usually our answer is that ‘we’ are around 400 groups of peasants, urban marginais

and de-professionalized intellectuals. ‘We’ know what ‘we’ are not: an organization,

a party, or a social movement if we assume that a social movement requires some

kind of political steering towards common goals) . . . The ‘we’ that I use is a very

diffused one. It is not a majestic ‘we’, like the Pope’s. It is not a rhetorical ‘we’, like a

populist politicians. It is not the formal ‘we‘ of anyone invested with a formal

representation or mandate. It is analogous to the ‘we’ used by members of a cultural

group blacks, women, the Eskimos, the French, neighbors), but the analogy is

imprecise?

If I have quoted at length from Esteva’s recent paper suggestively entitled

‘Regenerating people’s spaces’), it is because it captures the basic spirit of

the works I discuss. I am not talking about the many ‘we’s’ that are in the

process of being established throughout the Third World, but rather about a

smaller ‘we’ which seems to be in the making-the relatively small group of

Third World scholars mostly from India and several countries in Latin

America) who are trying to articulate the nature and direction of the many

new ‘we’s’ in the Third World with which they have been intimately

involved, to which they have belonged, whom they have seen grow perhaps

for many years. This handful of scholars especially D. L. Shet, Rajni Kothari,

Ashis Nandy, Vandana Shiva, Majid Rahnema, Orlando Fals Borda, and

Gustav0 Esteva, plus several Third World scholars working in the USA such

as Pramod Parajuli and, without doubt, many others in various Third World

contexts) are already engaged in a systematic reflection on the new move-

ments which they see as an alternative to Development. Majid Rahnema has

situated well the members of this group:

they belong to this small world of ‘de-professionalized intellectuals’-as Gustav0

Esteva calls them-who have been lately trying hard to understand the seemingly

chaotic messages trickling up from the grassroots, fully conscious of the crucial

importance for all to preserve the great diversity of cultures. Most of them have

been more or less closely engaged in various forms of struggle against colonial

domination. They all belong to this generation who believed at one time, that

development could be an answer to colonial forms of domination. Later, as they got

to share the people’s lot and to perceive many of the destructive effects of

development on their lives, they found out that the new ‘panacea’ had become, in

many ways, more dangerous than the traditional forms of domination . . . Exploring

the deeper causes of this phenomenon, many of them discovered, amongst others,

that the ‘colonial enemy’ was no longer only in areas where we all thought he was.

He had now become ‘the intimate enemy’, to use Ashis Nandy’s expression.‘l

In spite of differences, the members of this group share certain preoccupa-

tions and interests, as they advance their primary concern, namely, to

visualize alternatives to Development: an interest in culture and local

knowledge an anthropological and epistemological question); a critical

stance with respect to established scientific discourses an epistemological

and political question); and the defence and promotion of localized,

pluralistic grassroots movements a socioeconomic and political question). It

FUTURES June 1992



Reflect ions on ‘Development ’ 419

must be pointed out that the position of these authors is increasingly shared

by scholars from various parts of the world, and that the process of

deconstructing Development as a step towards its transformation or dismant-

ling is gaining ground. l2 In the paragraphs that follow I present briefly theunfolding of these questions in the work of this group of authors.13

New awakening of social mo vements in the Third World

The point of departure is a radical position vis-d-vis Development. ‘In

Mexico’, says Esteva, ‘you must be either numb or very rich if you fail to

notice that “development” stinks’.14 Rahnemals refers to Development as a

‘Frankenstein-type dream’, the heir of the project of homo axonomicus,

which has damaged, perhaps irreparably in many cases, the immune system

of many Third World communities, namely, their local cultures and local

subsistence systems, thus producing a Development-related type of AIDS.Similarly, Fals Borda refers to Development as a ‘model of exploitation alien

to our context and without support among our people, introduced without

realizing that this model impoverished our cultural roots and sources,

destroying our historical identity and impairing the creative and productive

possibilities of most people’.16 Everywhere they look, in sum, these authors

see signs of the malaise created by Development, in spite of the fact that

most Third World elites and international agencies still adhere to the model.

Hence the need, these authors argue, of undertaking a radical critique of

Development, an archaeology of this myth, at the same time that different

alternatives are pursued.

What are the major signs of the debacle of Development, and what arethe indications that perhaps something else is slowly arising out of its ruins?

One pathetic sign of the failure of Development is the present economic

crisis itself: little, if anything, has ‘trickled down’, life conditions for most

have deteriorated enormously, and the damage to persons and the environ-

ment has reached such unprecedented levels that it ‘can now be seen,

touched, and smelled’, while whole countries have amassed such staggering

debts that even the future of coming generations is gravely imperilled.

Poverty has become more acute and intractable than ever, and so has the

social and cultural crisis that irremediably have come with it. This crisis has

been aggravated by the urban bias of Development which has created large,

inhospitable cities.A second major characteristic of the present historical moment which is

witnessing the demise of Development is the breakdown of conventional

political mechanisms, particularly the state, traditional political parties, and

democracy itself. Conventional political structures have become increasingly

appended to the market, have become subjected to it to such an extent that

they are now unable to command the economy and intervene successfully

on behalf of the poor. This is true not only of the state, but also of the

dominant political parties. Trust in these conventional mechanisms has

decreased to an all time low. Throughout the Third World, in capitalist as

well as in socialist regimes, states have surrendered their autonomy and

withdrawn from their responsibility, acquiring a depoliticized, technocratic

nature that is actually a facade for their increasingly repressive character;

they have become the representatives of entrenched interests, and adopted

FUTURES June 1992



420 Ref lec t ions on ‘Develop me nt ’

a centralized, militaristic and autocratic character. Thus, it has become

strikingly clear that what is in crisis is the entire model of politics and

political practice, in both its bourgeois and ‘revolutionary’ strands. And in

the vacuum so created, new political forces are coming to light.A final theme related to the demise of Development is the failure of

Western science to provide the kinds of knowledge necessary for building

and maintaining culture and community in the Third World. Not only has

Western science been the major inspiration and legitimation of the failed

dream of Development, but it has ac tually been an instrument of cultural

violence on the Third World. Because of its reductionistic nature, Western

science has been indelibly linked to exploitative economic systems and the

growing ecological crisis; desertification, deforestation, chemical poisoning,

inappropriate health technologies and so forth are only the most salient

manifestations of the inappropriateness of Western science to deal with the

problems of the Third World. Moreover, Western science exerts violence ina number of ways-against the subject of knowledge the divide between

expert and non-expert, between subject and object), against the object of

knowledge particularly nature), against the beneficiaries of knowledge

people become knowledge’s objects and victims), and against knowledge

itself, for Western science suppresses other forms of knowledge, and in so

doing betrays its very nature, namely, the search for truth. Modern science,

on the other hand, claims to be the exclusive path to truth; but this c laim

can be disputed on a number of grounds: it can be proven, following

contemporary history and philosophy of science, that there is not merely

one ‘scientific method’, or that this method ensures ‘objectivity’, or that the

kind of knowledge so generated is not bound by history and politics.

Moreover, other systems of production of knowledge have always existed

and still exist.”

But perhaps the most relevant observation that can be made in relation

to Western science is that the soc ial basis of knowledge on which it relies,

and which it produces, has stagnated and perhaps actually shrunk. Despite

its fantastic accomplishments, access to knowledge is restricted, and tradi-

tional, aesthetic and intuitive forms of knowledge are marginalized, as

knowledge itself becomes mystified, losing sight of people’s needs. In fac t,

local problems and loca l knowledge systems become inac cessible to mod-

ern science at least in the Third World), a fac t of which grassroots activists

have been aware for some time. Hence the need to search for alternative

conceptions of knowledge as part of the search for alternative political

spaces; the latter cannot be conducted without the former.18 As Vandana

Shiva pointedly states, ‘killing people by murdering nature is no longer an

invisible form of violence’. Local struggles, she continues,

are part of the proc ess of global transformation currently under way. They are

modest manifestations of a search, non-theorized and non-verbalized, for an altern-

ative scientific and technological culture; an alternative development paradigm; an

alternative concept of state and security; and, with their stress on non-violence and

justice and peace, an alternative civilization.lg

This is the context in which the new grassroots movements have started to

emerge, espec ially over the past 15 years. Shet and Fals Borda insist that the

grassroots are becoming more visible due to the new conditions that, more

than ever, have imperilled their survival and have instilled in them a new

FUTURES June 992



Reflec t ions on Develo pm ent ’ 421

consciousness. So they are beginning to show unprecedented initiative and,

in some cases, launch frontal attacks. This has become possible due to the

changes in the social and political context since the beginning of the 1970s

also influenced, of course, by changes elsewhere, which cannot be dis-cussed here*O). Their actual resurgence has certainly been aided by a new

brand of grassroots activists, mostly popular leaders, middle-class educated

youth, intellectuals, professional and church people who in the past decade

have started to work in sizeable numbers with various groups of the poor,

using novel methods and espousing new goals. As a result, grassroots

organizations of many kinds are proliferating and acquiring a force capable

of far-reaching social and political transformations.

Women’s movements of various kinds; ecology movements for in-

stance, the already famous Chipko movement of the Himalayan region of

India, and ‘green movements’ in several Third World countries); peasant

groups and groups of urban marginals or urban working class; civicmovements of diverse nature and scope; new organizations of women,

ethnic minorities, and indigenous peoples; popular culture, student, and

youth movements; squatter movements in urban areas; church-sponsored

organizations such as the Christian-based communities in Latin America,

which have grown noticeably in the wake of the theology of liberation,

becoming a powerful force in some countries), and so forth-all are

examples of local struggles that are taking place in the Third World today.

Some of these movements are constructed around specific problems and

disappear as the problem is solved or dealt with; others last longer,

resulting in more permanent organizations; a few are actually leading over

the years to the formation of important regional movements, in turn a

coalition of many grassroots movements.~’ Some of these groups have been

more important than others women’s and youth groups are particularly

prominent), and many are the result of people organizing themselves to

prevent or repair the damage done by Development and deal with their

current problems, creating along the way new political spaces for popular

causes. Although it would be impossible to summarize even a few of these

movements here, it is important to identify grosso mode some of their

general features.

Features in common . What do all these new social movements of grassroots

orientation have in common, as perceived by the authors we are discussing

and by some of the social movements theorists to be discussed below)?

1) They are essentially local movements, responses given by a group of

people to particular problems or direct instances of power. in this sense,

they concern the day-to-day experience of people. The aim of their struggle

is not power per se, especially not ‘state power’, but the establishment of

conditions which usually include non-formal or non-conventional forms of

power) in which they can have greater autonomy over the decisions that

affect their lives. In spite of their primarily local character, they may branch

out horizontally by sharing information, experiences and actual support

with other struggles), or vertically but always from the bottom up and from

the periphery to the centre). A struggle that arises around a Development

issue for instance access to health care, may lead to other issues such as

women organizing to deal with specific forms of sexism and violence. In

FUTURES June 1992




sum, they are non-party political formations which may or may not form

horizontal networks or regional movements

2) They are pluralistic struggles, seldom aligned with one particular

ideology or political party. In fact, they share a distrust for organized politics

and conventional political organizations, and are often times explicitly

pursued as alternatives to Development. Thus, they tend to bypass estab-

lished Development organizations, local elites and parties, or engage them

in different terms. But they are by no means apolitical; instead of a

depoliticized Development, they politicize the rights of the poor.

3) Even if they are frequently motivated by economic reasons, they do

not conceive of their struggle in purely economic terms or only in terms of

economic classes. Local culture, artistic aspects and communal aspirations

are often equally important concerns. They may also become deeply

interested in the history of their communities and the place they occupy in

regional or national contexts especially when participatory research is

involved); that is, they have a certain awareness that local problems and

local power structures have an important relationship with macro structures.

4) More particularly, they do not accept at face value the knowledge of

the ‘expert’ and of government agents. Increasingly, they rely on their own

knowledge or, at any rate, their own knowledge occupies an increasingly

important role in their decision-making processes.

~m~~c~. What impact are these new movements having in the Third World?

‘I) In general, it can be said that these movements are opening the way

for the creation of a politics for an alternative Development anchored in the

grassroots and, in this way, providing new possibilities for satisfying human

needs including food, nutrition and health). Their pluralistic and non-party

character, on the other hand, is bringing into play a whole new style of

political activity, transforming the very nature of what constitutes a progress-

ive political practice. A ‘new mode of doing politics’, or ‘transformative

politics of the future’, as Shet calls it.** This new mode requires a new role

from activists and intellectuals and from knowledge itself), seeks to rede-

fine the role of political parties and, in the long run, that of the state), and

alters our perception of the relationship between local and global issues.

2) In relation to the intellectual, there is a redefinition of the character

of his or her role. To begin with, the distance between intellectuals,

grassroots activists and the grassroots is greatly reduced; the intellectual is

no longer seen as the rationalizer of the dominant model of power and

knowledge, but rather as a person who is or must be) committed to the

generation of knowledge that serves the grassroots, precisely because s/he

takes local knowledge seriously. This does not mean that there is no place

for ‘academic’ knowledge; often, new movements have come about as the

result of the interaction between ‘academic knowledge’ and ‘popular know-

ledge’, as participatory action research theorists and activists believe.23 This

new shift in the character of intellectual work also restores a certain human

dimension to knowledge and social action. Furthermore, the thick veneer

that conventional knowledge has laid upon popular forms of knowledge

starts to dissolve, bringing into view struggles, conflicts and forms ofknowledge that were previously buried. In this new partnership between

FUTURES lune 1992




intellectuals and grassroots activists, the former have to consider people’s

self-definitions as a crucial part in their inquiry. To the extent that this is the

case, a new awareness of cultural difference may emerge and contribute

further to the breakdown of ethnocentrism and universal values. As AshisNandy points out, 24 this will preclude knowledge and global awareness from

overlooking the political morality of everyday life. All this speaks of a new

epistemology.

3) The current visualization of the relationship between the local and

the global is also affected by the new visibility of the grassroots. There is a

growing realization, on the one hand, that local contexts offer important

clues and resources for understanding more global issues and, conversely,

on the other, that it is important to understand, within the context of a local

struggle, how local people are linked to world systems. This may lead to

concepts that are more relevant and useful to local people in their daily life

and struggles. For ‘macro’ scholars, it means pursuing a different type ofmacro-thinking according to which the micro-macro linkage can only be

fruitfully investigated through practice, that is, through involvement with,

and reflection on, localized struggles; in other words, intellectuals may

contribute to ‘making the world more transparent for citizens’, as Galtung

puts it, by participating in ‘a plurality of revolutions at the micro level’.25 A

new dialectic of micro-practice and macro-thinking seems to be emerging,

one which is advanced by intellectuals and activists engaged in processes of

social transformation. This ‘local/global ~~o~/e~a~j~ue’ is actually beginning

to be explored systematically in the human sciences.26

4) This, of course, implies the ‘bottom-up’ codification of local strug-

gles. There is indication that some of this is already happening, even if

slowly. Horizontal networks are beginning to appear, for instance, in India,

Colombia, Brazil and Mexico, propitiating at the same time significant

regional and even national debates. 27 It is not inconceivable that parallel

power networks of importance may appear, articulated around the more

human dimensions of localities and regions, and following the principles of

autonomy, decentralization and pluralism. New arenas and surfaces of

struggle are being opened up in the terrain of civil society, augmenting the

possibility of undertaking more autonomous projects. The concept of region

is becoming increasingly important in this regard.28 In general, what is at

stake is a reformulation of the state-development-securi~ triad.

5) Finally, new subjectivities are appearing, a reflection of the recon-

version of subjectivities which usually accompanies important social and

cultural transformations. The categories of the ‘underdeveloped’ and the

‘poor’ are witnessing a hopeful fragmentation; women, indigenous peoples,

the peasantry, various types of urban groups, the environment, questions of

peace and security, and so forth, are achieving a new visibility which makes

them important historical subjects in their own right. The distinction

between ‘modernity’ and ‘tradition’, one of the major dualisms through

which development operates, is showing clearer signs of obsolescence,

despite the fact that the current restructuring of the world economy along

the lines of President Bush’s new world order seems to imply that capitalist

‘modernization’ is the only alternative left the Third World. How knowledge

participates in the mapping and constitution of a social field, and how it is

linked to a division of labour and the state emerge as poignant questions in

FUTURES June 1992



424 Refkc f ions on ‘Develop me nt ’

the more pragmatic view of knowledge that informs grassroots movements.

The question of the creation of popular counterpowers is at the heart of

those movements, still limited in number, which use a participatory action

research methodology PAR). PAR grew out of experiences in populareducation and grassroots activism in various parts of the Third World.

Central to PAR philosophy is the question of popular power, ie the

investigation of mechanisms necessary to develop popular counterpowers

and their relationship to the production of knowledge. PAR seeks to

generate power, not ‘to develop’, it combines techniques of adult educa-

tion, social science research, and political activism such as collective

research between external agents or intellectuals and popular groups), the

critical reconstruction of local and regional histories, the restoration and use

of popular cultures including people’s feelings, imagination, and artistic

capabilities), and novel means of diffusing knowledge. By problematizing

the relationship between the intellectual or activist and ‘the people’, PAR

seeks to transform the subject/object division central to conventional epi-

stemology into a subject~subject one. It also reformulates the questions of

the ‘vanguard’ and political representation; whose knowledge counts, and

for what purposes become an overriding concern. What is at stake is the

production of knowledge geared to specific social transformations. En-

dogenous to the Third World, PAR is becoming an important counter-

discourse in relation to development.29.

The account of the new movements given so far may give the impres-

sion that the profound transformation which they are apparently bringing

about is already on its way to becoming consolidated. Unfortunately, it is

not clear that this is the case, especially not in relation to Development perse.

In spite of the importance of these movements, there are immense prob-

lems and obstacles in the way to the consolidation of a mass politics

through the grassroots. The movements are still fragmented, often they are

conceived in narrow ideological terms, and they are usually at pains to

survive financially and materially. Moreover, it is not clear how they can in

practice become an alternative to conventional politics; it is not unusual for

any of these movements to be unable to undermine, bypass or transcend

the existing political structures. The spectre of cooptation is always present,

as the state realigns its forces and modifies its mechanisms of operation;

new forms of visibility and resistance are also new possibilities of domina-

tion. The authors that are beginning to reflect on these movements are also

developing awareness of these problems. But the movements inspire, in

general, a cautious hope, perhaps best expressed by Shet in his assessment

of ‘alternative development as political practice’:“O

The grassroots movements for alternative development, at present limited as they are

in their geographical spread, have nevertheless acquired significant intensity and

persistence. The challenge facing them is how to work this new politics from the

bottom up so that its impact is felt at the national and global levels . . . But if

desertion by sizable number of professionals in the countries of Asia and Latin

America) from their conventional professions and their participation in various types

of people’s organizations is any indication of the strength of these initiatives, and if

the extent to which the people organized through these initiatives are becoming less

and less available for conventional politics, gives any indication of their growing

political influence, these movements are bound to pose a serious challenge to the

political establishments in these countries in the years to come . . The new basis is

FUTURES tune 1992




to be found in a new theory of knowledge, a new pedagogy of democracy and a new

conception of politics itself . . . [These movements] are the cutting edge of the

process of democratization which can be the only source and context of fundamental

political and social transformation.31

It is possible to visualize how the new grassroots orientation to knowledge

and social action in the Third World might contribute to transforming

Development. Again, the basic criterion is how it shakes the foundations of

the basic organization of the post-war discourse. It tends to do so in several

crucial respects: by denouncing both the economistic character of Develop-

ment and the inadequacy of conventional knowledge systems-actually

setting into motion alternative practices-it disrupts the fundamental link

between Development, capital and science, at the same time placing

technology in a new context. By fostering new forms of organization and

bypassing official Development institutions, it undermines the position of

the developmentalist state and the international Development organizations,

thus destabilizing the grid of operation of the Development apparatus. The

emphasis on culture, on the other hand, contributes to eroding some basic

dichotomies through which Development becomes effective urban/rural;

traditional/modern; core/periphery). Women’s struggles and those of in-

digenous peoples directly subvert several of the most effective instruments

of Development, namely, patriarchy and ethnocentrism; the defence of the

environment militates against the reification of nature and economism in

general. The localized, decentralized and pluralistic character of the new

struggles, finally, makes conventional Development technologies top-down,

centralized planning; rural Development packages, etc) less effective and

unavoidable.

As Esteva points out, 32 it will be necessary to rely on the scientific and

institutional infrastructure already created by Development in order to

reorient public policy. Too much damage has already been done. To be

fruitful, however, this strategy must reveal the consequences of the bureau-

cratization and rigidity that characterizes policy as a first step towards

reorienting it. These efforts, Esteva proposes, would coexist with the more

autonomous initiatives undertaken by the grassroots and, eventually, the

two main lines of the strategy would reinforce each other, rather than

combat each other; they will reach ‘an agreement in difference’. As more

peasants, ‘marginals’, and deprofessionalized intellectuals become visible,

their vision will probably affect government bureaucrats and professionals,

who, within the limit of their constraints, will begin to share that vision.

New commons will be created continuously as ‘co-motion’, instead of

‘pro-motion’, is encouraged. Through this kind of work, Development may

finally be dismantled.33 In general terms, we may see this process as the

bringing about of a problematization of knowledge and politics through

which a new order may be created.

The new style of people’s participation definitely requires new styles of

decision making, new programmes, and a different public or international

concern. A number of people and organizations are already beginning to

imagine and experiment with those new forms, and international exchange

of experiences is already taking place. ‘The new approach’, writes MajidRahnema,

FUTURES June 992



426 Reflect ions on ‘Developmen t’

is thus the opposite of any obsessive ‘mission’ for ‘developing’ others for remolding

them according to ethno-technocentrically pre-defined standards or ‘universal’

models . . . new ways and means are to be imagined mainly to allow each different

group to be informed to learn about other human groups and cultures in terms of

their respective life support systems; in other words to be opened to differences

and learn from them. As such only a highly decentralized non-bureaucratic

inter-cul tural rather than inter-nat ional network of persons and groups could

respond to such needs. These could be complemented by international pools and

networks of information aimed at connecting various grassroots movements with

others sharing similar preoccupations as well as assisting them in obtaining the

knowledge, technical advice and, possibly, the resources of their need.34

Some of these networks of grassroots organizations are already being

formed for instance, networks of indigenous, women’s and environmental

groups in the Americas). In fac t, all the grassroots movements we have been

discussing in relation to Development are but one important aspect of a

broader soc ial and political transformation being brought about by so-callednew soc ial movements in the Third World, to which we now turn.

New social movements, anti-Development struggles and alternative politics in

the Third World

Em ergenc e of new soc ia l mo vem ents

The 1980s witnessed a new kind of theorizing about the nature and scope of

soc ial movements, espec ially in Western Europe and Latin America. Long

dominated by Marxist approaches and functionalist soc iology, soc ial the-

orists discovered a vast array of soc ial movements, referred to by some as‘new soc ial movements’ NSMs), which are seen as profoundly transforming

not only the nature of the soc ial and the political, but also theorizing itself.

These movements are thought to be the result of a specific intellectual and

political conjuncture. In Western Europe and industrialized countries in

general, they are seen as responses to the pervasive processes of commodi-

fication, bureauc ratization and cultural massification of soc ial life brought

about by the hegemonic formation that became consolidated at the end of

World War II. New antagonisms have emerged as a response to these

processes, which in turn are fuelling a variety of unprecedented soc ial and

political manifestations. 35 In the Third World, social movements are seen as

the result of the failure of the developmentalist state to fulfil the promises

of the early post-war period, on the one hand, and the inability of

conventiona l political mechanisms to respond to persistent crises, on the

other.36

Although there are many significant differences between the theorizing

about soc ial movements and the soc ial movements themselves in Western

Europe and Latin America, there are also some important points of conver-

gence. Intellectually and politically, what seems to be experienced is the

rupture of a unified political space characterized by a privileged subject,

namely, the working class. This unity has been shattered to give way to a

plurality of collective actors women, indigenous peoples, ethnic minorities,

ecologists, peasants etc), each with a relative sphere of autonomy.

Moreover, soc iety itself is perceived as a plural entity which is produced in

part through the construction of collective identities by new soc ial actors in

FUTURES tune 992




pursuit of the control of historicity, defined as the basic cultural models of

society.37 These identities are necessarily unstable, historically formed

through processes of articulation. Many different groups which characterize

today’s social movements are believed to obey this new logic.In the Third World, forms of analysis in terms of dependency or

marginality can no longer capture the essence of these new manifestations.

At the same time, the developmentalist state cannot own up to its discourse

of material progress and ‘catching up’ with the industrialized countries. In

Latin America, the new theoreticians see social movements as the search for

a new ‘political culture’, one in which struggles are less mediated by

conventional forms and discourses, and which may even make possible the

construction of a new political project based on a different practice of

democracy. This practice would be characterized by a more direct and

independent style of participation, and involve the politicization of everyday

individual and social spheres, the expansion of the realm of the political ingeneral, and the recovery of the social away from the control by the state.38

How this will occur is by no means clear at this point although, as we see

below, there are already some valuable theoretical guidelines to understand

the dynamics of this process.

A word of caution is necessary at this point. Reflection in the 1980s has

been marked by a certain sense of optimism. The continued deepening of

the crisis in Latin America, the sluggishness and precariousness of ‘demo-

cratization processes’ in some countries and the acceleration of violence in

others notably, Colombia and Peru, but also Brazil and Mexico), and the

unclear status of the social movements themselves are all contributing to

tempering the early optimism. At the same time, a more sobering view and

a sharper way of looking at social movements are being developed. For

instance, the extent to which social movements are becoming ‘political

subjects’ is not so readily accepted. Participation has been somewhat

glorified, and the sense of direction and forms of convergence until recently

imputed to these movements are now placed in doubt. As a result, social

movements are now admitted to be more fragmented and contradictory,

with more internal conflicts and perhaps not so independent from conven-

tional politics and the state as it was thought in the early 1980s. Moreover,

as Ruth Cardoso, one of the principal and most critical observers of these

movements in Latin America recently stated,

There is no doubt that we are confronted with new actors engaged in direct andconfrontational dialogue with the State; to decipher this dialogue, however, new

ways of understanding are required. If, on the one hand, contemporary society

rediscovered certain forms of participation, the State, on the other, widened and

diversified the field of its actions.39

We already encountered a similar conclusion in Shet’s assessment of the

grassroots alternatives to Development. There seems to be, then, general

agreement on the importance and novelty of the new movements, even if

their nature, real significance, and future role are the subject of disagree-

ment and active investigation. There is also the felt need to refine methods

of analysis and research in this regard. In the following section, we present

briefly the rudiments of a general approach to the study of social move-

ments and their impact on politics, which we then apply to the case of

Development in the Third World.

FUTURES June 992



428 Reflecfions on ‘Developm ent

Hegemonic form o olit ics and the Thi rd Wor ld

One of the most coherent contemporary theoretical approaches to the study

of contemporary social movements is that provided by Ernest0 Laclau and

Chantal Mouffe.40 According to these authors, a new model of political

practice, referred to by them as ‘the hegemonic form of politics’, is already

established in the industrialized countries of the world. In the previous

model, the political space was composed of two clearly identifiable antag-

onistic camps the working class and the bourgeoisie), and society was

supposed to have an intelligible, rational structure regulated by necessary

laws. The new situation, these authors continue, is drastically different.

There is no longer any privileged historicopolitical subject; rather, each

subject position is endowed with its own symbolic productivity, and each

social identity is ‘unfixed’ that is, with no necessary link to class, means or

production, or a central axis), its logic depending on the specific articulation

which it achieves within a particular hegemonic formation.

It is in this fragmented space in which today’s social movements

emerge. NSMs contribute to the making of the social order on the basis of

the frontiers and articulations they establish among themselves. They con-

stitute partial fixations of meaning in an external field of discursivity which

overflows all identities. These necessarily partial fixations of the social occur

around nodal points privileged points of problematization of social rela-

tions or power relations), so that identities are no longer given and fixed

once and for all, but have to be constructed in a plural space. Thus, if

politics is the practice of creating, reproducing and transforming social

relations-especially those which construct subjects in relations of subor-

dination-the problem of politics is no less than the institution of the social

in a field traversed by antagonisms. One major goal appears in this regard:

to identify the conditions for the emergence of collective action against

forms of inequality by subverting the ways in which different groups are

placed under conditions of subordination. For Laclau and Mouffe, this task

necessarily entails an external discourse which allows the construction of

subordination as oppression, a process which clearly depends on historical

conditions for instance, the subordination of women only became a

feminist movement at a certain moment in the history of capitalism when it

was possible to construct the relation of subordination as a relation of

oppression using the existing democratic discourse of equality).

The spectre of cooptation is, of course, always present. Laclau and

Mouffe insist on the fact that the progressive character of the new identities

cannot be taken for granted; rather, it depends on the form of their

articulation with other struggles for instance, the anti-racist or anti-sexist

character of the workers’ movement cannot be taken for granted). It is

always possible that the oppositional value of some of them might be

absorbed into a homogenizing discourse for instance, the welfare state

tried to neutralize all forms of opposition by turning them into differences

with an equal value under the homogenizing discourse of welfare for all).

Potentially progressive struggles may also become reactionary if they are

articulated by a right-wing discourse as in the case of certain struggles for

individual autonomies captured by the anti-state discourses of Thatcher andReagan), and vice versa for instance, the discourse of liberation theology,

FUTURES lune 1992




which emerged as part of other struggles and historical changes in Latin

America, allowed to articulate in a progressive manner certain forms of

spirituality, previously articulated by the apolitical or reactionary discourses

of the Catholic church).Some key questions that emerge from this conceptualization are the

following: what are the relations of subordination which are not yet fully

constructed as forms of oppression. 7 In relation to what external discourse

will they be articulated as such? What new antagonisms are being pro-

duced? Which of these might be co-opted, that is, absorbed into a system

of differences where the oppositional value of the various identities is lost?

if new identities are being formed, what are the discourses and practices

that construct their subject positions eg as ‘urban marginals’, ‘ethnic

minorities’, etc)? What kinds of struggle are likely to emerge as a result of

this construction? Or, for instance, consider the following: in terms of what

discourses has opposition been conceived until now? Are there newdiscourses emerging? How can the latter be made available to social groups

under conditions of subordination, so as to articulate forms of resistance?

Can these new opposition discourses articulate a matrix for a new political

imaginary? Can they provide new nodal points for the institution of the

social and the exercise of the political? fn the final section we explore some

of these questions, albeit in a tentative and general manner.

The logic of Development reflects the old form of institution of the social.

The early post-war period saw the creation of the discourse of Developmentas the key symbolic dimension of a whole socioeconomic and political

experience. Articulated on a certain domain of reality the real conditions of

Asia, Africa and Latin America), this discourse opened up a field of

experience which resulted in a series of practices through which the real

was given shape by those who conceptualized and managed ‘development’.

As we saw, Development brought together a whole series of real elements

and experiences which, characterized as ‘underdevelopment’, became the

target of regulation and control. We now understand Development as the

answer given to the problematization of the specific situation that existed in

the early post-war period. Development, in this way, introduced a relation

between truth and reality through which the real was known and acted on

in certain ways.

The hegemony of this discourse is now crumbling. Development re-

ferred in a fundamental way to a reality which was external to the Third

World that of the industrialized countries); the need is now felt for creating

discourses which are more endogenous, which are articulated in relation to

internal referents. It is no longer a question of posing a bimodai type of

antagonism eg between the North and the South, core and periphery), but

rather of calling into question the totalizing drive of conventional politics;

not a matter of denouncing development as a system of domination, which

might be shaken by a single act of liberation, but of acknowledging the

multiplicity of nodal points through which the social is or might be

constituted.

The present crisis is, in a deep sense, a crisis of the system which until

FUTURES June 1992




now defined identities in the post-World War II social and political space.

This has come about as a result of various forces, and has resulted in new

antagonisms through which a new reality, perhaps even a new counterhege-

manic formation, might be brought into existence. But if identities are notgiven, but are or have to be constructed, we have to examine the noda l

points around which social struggles are gravitating or being formed, and

the discourses which are providing or going to provide the necessary

elements for the articulation of those struggles in themselves and with other

struggles, so as to ensure and amplify their progressive character. In relation

to the Third World, it can perhaps be said that there are three major

discourses which today articulate or have the potential to articulate new

forms of struggle:

I) The discourse on the fulfilment of the democratic imaginary including

basic needs, equality, economic and soc ial justice, human rights, class,

gender and ethnicity etc). This first discourse originates in the egalitarian

discourses of the West, and still offers the possibility for important gains

and a radicalization of democracy through new forms of pluralism.

2) The discourses on difference, particularly cultural difference including

self-determination but going beyond its current definition primarily in

economic terms); the need to respect alterity and autonomy in the con-

struction of identities and subjectivities, to assert eac h soc iety’s right to

define its own path. This second set of discourses is made possible in

various ways by struggles for nationa l liberation, the struggles of indigenous

peoples and women, the revision of history, the challenging of European

ethnocentrism, the relativity of knowledge, the breakdown of positivist

epistemology, and so forth.3) An anti-Development discourse proper, related to the current crisis of

Development debt crisis, crisis of the political, further weakening of the

developmentalist state, generalized economic crisis, new international divi-

sion of labour etc). This discourse originates in anti-imperialism in general,

the failure of Western technology and capital to solve the problems of the

Third World and, more recently, the movements for the defense of soc ial

and cultural identities under threat by Development technologies. This type

of discourse may provide the basis for radical anti-capitalist struggles,

capitalism being understood simultaneously as an economic, soc ial, and

cultural construct.

These discourses may provide the basis for the construction of subjec t

positions and the development of struggles which, in turn, may bring about

a new form of institution of the soc ial. As argued above, contemporary

soc ial movements including the growing grassroots alternatives to Develop-

ment) are actually setting up this process of reconstitution of the Third

World. Given this fac t, and keeping in mind the centrality that Development

has had and still has in relation to the present system of constitution of the

Third World, the project that arises for those trying to formulate alternatives

to Development is then that of understanding the potential and ac tual

contribution of anti-Development discourses and practices to the articula-

tion of those soc ial movement which are opening up new terrains of

experience and ac tion. Linked to research and reflection on the present

conditions of the Third World in the international arena, this type of projec t

FUTURES June 1992




may bring fruitful results and avoid futile efforts. Let us explore this

possibility further as a way of concluding our argument.

Present anti-Development struggles, as we already discussed, are the

result of social transformations that have occurred particularly during thepast 5 years, perhaps since the oil and food crises of the early 1970s. They

have become more acute and visible during the present decade. The

construction of subjects in Asia, Africa and Latin America as ‘Third World’ or

‘underdeveloped’ is experiencing new fissures, and so is the building of

oppositional movements on merely anti-imperialist or economistic grounds.

At the same time, the arbitrary character of the relations of subordination

that Development entails is becoming increasingly evident, making possible

the expansion of anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, and even anti-productivist

and anti-market struggles to new terrains, and the articulation of these

struggles not only in economic terms but also in relation to manifold social,

cultural, and religious realities. Dominant practices and discourses bearingnew forms of inequality for instance, the debt, militarism, neo-liberal

economics, the new world order) are also allowing certain subject positions

to become new sites of antagonism Contadora, the Cartegena Consensus

for collective debt negotiation, democratization in the Southern Cone,

coalitions of social movements that achieve national proportions, such as

the Worker’s Party in Brazil, the M-19 Democratic Alliance in Colombia, and

Cardenismo in Mexico).

Many of today’s social movements in the Third World are in one way or

another mediated by anti-Development discourses-since the Third World

has been indelibly marked by the mediation of Development-although this

often takes place in an implicit manner. In contrast to the industrialized

countries, struggles in the Third World are not just an extension of the

‘democratic revolution’, although some of this is happening and has to

happen, especially in order to deal effectively with the precariousness of

material conditions and, in general, to bring about the democratization of

social and economic life. They are not primarily struggles against commodi-

fication, bureaucratization and cultural massification, as in the developed

countries-after all, the state can barely provide for its citizens’ needs, and

total homogenization is far from being achieved; but they involve aspects of

opposition to the bureaucratic organization of life achieved by Development

institutions for instance, by peasants against rural development packages,

or by squatters against public housing programmes), and to the steady

expansion of cornmodification and capitalist rationality brought about by

Development technologies. Development has in many ways created the

hungry, the illiterate, the marginals, the migrants, those belonging to the

informal economy, the excluded women and indigenous peoples etc, that

is, the entire cast of characters who are now becoming social actors in their

own way.

Thus the new struggles in the Third World depend on a discursive

context which goes well beyond the principles of equality, relations of

production, citizenship, and so on. Even if they are transnational and

cross-cultural, they cannot be reduced to a single anti-imperialist or anti-

Western movement; in fact, the peculiarities of each society-cultural,

historical, the situation of women, the link to the international division of

labour etc-have to be taken into account, precluding the reduction of

FUTURES June 1992




struggles to a single antagonism the case of Islamic fundamentalism might

be a partial exception in this regard). In cases such as South Africa and parts

of Central America, the political space is marked by relatively stable and

identifiable camps, with well demarcated frontiers and antagonisms whichdo not have to be constructed through a hegemonic articulation of the type

needed in other countries. At the other extreme, we have many other

countries in the Third World which approach more closely the model of

hegemonic politics described by Laclau and Mouffe, with many points of

rupture, prec arious soc ial identities, and blurring of frontiers.

As already mentioned briefly, the direc tions in which the new struggles

evolve will depend on hegemonic articulations which are by no means

predetermined. They can be articulated to progressive or reactionary dis-

courses; even a given discourse, such as religion or nationalism, may allow

the construction of struggles in progressive ways in one case and reaction-

ary in others for instance, theology of liberation and Christian-basedcommunities v fundamentalist Protestant sec ts, frequently linked to right-

wing regimes in Latin America). The reformulation of Development has an

important role to play in this regard. Grassroots engaged in alternative

practices of knowing and dealing with their physical and human ec ologies,

on the one hand, can contribute to redefining soc ial justice, basic needs,

and democracy itself; on the other hand, critics and activists working for

alternatives to Development, in turn, may analyse how specific situations,

soc ial relations, or power mechanisms could serve as nodal points for new

discursive formations or collective identities. These two aspects are closely

interrelated; they involve complex discursive operations that have to be

investigated in concrete institutional and soc ial contexts.

The task of articulation of struggles requires to visualize and follow the

particular form taken by the discourses of articulation, namely I) the

deepening of the democratic imaginary, in the direction of a radical

pluralistic democracy; 2) the deepening of anti-imperialist ideologies, in the

direction of the assertion of difference and the right of self-determination;

and 3) the deepening of anti-Development discourses, in the direction of

new power-knowledge regimes for the examination of economic, soc ial and

cultural problems and the construction of ways to deal with them. These

processes would represent-to a greater or lesser extent depending on the

nature of the articulations obtained-possibilities for democratic, cultural

and epistemologica l transformations of local, regional, and, possibly, na-

tional, and global dimensions.

Summary

(1) Development has been the major mechanism for organizing the produc-

tion of truth and knowledge about much of Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Embodied in a multiplicity of practices, the discourse of Development has

had a profound effect on reality in those parts of the world. It introduced

ways of doing things, of thinking and acting, through which reality itself has

been greatly constructed and managed. After four decades of this discourse,

we can now suspend its familiarity and see it for what it is: a historical

construction which became normal and transparent, but which was by no

means natural or neutral: it involved crucial choices the nature of which we

FUTURES June 1992



Reflect ions on ‘Developmen t’ 433

are fully recognizing now. Third World people can now recognize the

material, social, and cultural price they have paid for this becoming.

Development has finally lost its normal and transparent character for them.

2) To produce alternatives to Development means to come up withalternative discourses and practices. A discourse is dismantled or trans-

formed by modifying specific practices of knowing and doing. What is at

stake is the articulation of different practices of constituting subjects capable

of knowing, analysing and, eventually, modifying the real. This process

takes place around certain nuclei or nodal points; various grassroots

movements, concerned explicitly with problems of Development, already

seem to be establishing some of these points. It can be said that what is in

the making is a new problematization of knowledge and politics which will

replace the regime brought about by the post-war problematization of

poverty and Development. This problematization arises as a response to the

new real conditions in the Third World, and will result in new forms of

institution of the social.

3) Grassroots alternatives to Development are part of a broader trans-

formation in the nature and style of social and political practice. This

transformation is reflected in, and being produced by, a variety of social

movements, the importance of which is growing steadily in the Third World.

Anti-Development discourses and practices have an important role to play in

the construction of new collective identities; to be most effective, this

construction should be articulated strategically, to the extent possible, to

other social movements so as to promote wider oppositional formations.

Conversely, anti-Development struggles-as well as discursive critiques of

Development and detailed studies of specific Development fields, pro-

grammes, or institutional practices-are potentially of great value in the

articulation of other struggles. Specific proposals for alternatives will have to

be worked out in various fields and situations.

4) It is necessary to visualize how current historical conditions affect

the present possibilities for these processes to take place. As social move-

ments and anti-Development struggles grow, states, international capital,

patriarchy, scientific discourses and the like adapt their modes of operation,

and vice versa. It is of crucial importance to visualize how social movements

stand in relation to the play of these forces. High technology, for instance,

is producing a new international division of labour, referred to by some as

a ‘post-Fordist regime’ of accumulation,42 in which the role played by

various Third World countries is becoming increasingly differentiated,

widening the social distance between and within countries, and inducing

drastic qualitative changes as well. It would be foolish not to deal with these

questions.

5) Development undoubtedly belongs with the larger landscape of

Western history, especially that of modernity. A genealogy of Development,

intended to discover the more distant origins of Development practices in

those of Western modernity, would complement the archaeology of post-

World War II Development discourse; it would allow us to detect the more

profound dependence of the Third World on a Western episteme and

historicity. Lessening this dependence would imply working for a relation

between truth and reality different from that which has characterized

Western modernity in general especially, perhaps, the Western economy),

FUTURES June 1992




and Development in particular. Then it might be possible to reverse the

self-evident nature of the need to develop. This, in turn, may be a

necessary, although by no means sufficient, step towards reversing the

relations of domination that exist between the countries of Europe andNorth America and those of Asia, Africa and Latin America. In the process,

we may discover new ways of organizing our societies and our economies,

new ways of relating to nature and to each other. And this may bring about

the possibilities for healing and caring that are so needed in what until now

has been known as the Third World.

Notes and references

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

a.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

Throughout the article, I capitalize Development, following a usage proposed by Irene

Gendzier, Managing Pol i t ical Change: Social Scient isfs and the Third World Boulder, CO,

Westview Press, 1985), and already followed by others to highlight the historica l, ‘invented’

nature of this discourse. See Adele Mueller, ‘In and against Development: Feminists

confront Development on its own ground’, unpublished manuscript, 1991; and J ames

Ferguson, The Anti-Pol i t ics Machine: Development, Depol i f ic izat ion and Bureaucratic Power

in Lesotho Cambridge, C ambridge University Press, 1990).

Quoted in Reassemblage Film Script), a documentary about women in Senegal by Trinh T.

Minh-ha Camera Obscura, 13/14, 1981.

Arturo Escobar, ‘Discourse and power in Development: Michel Foucault and the relevance

of his work to the Third World’, Alter nativ es, IV(~), 1984, pages 377-400; Arturo Escobar,

‘Power and visibility: the invention and management of Development in the Third World’,

Cultural Ant hrop olog y, 3(4), 1988, pages 428-443; Ferguson, op t i t , reference 1; Wolfang

Sac hs editor), The Development Dict ionary. A Guide to Know/edge as Power London: Zed

Books, 1992).

Edward Said, Orientalism (New York, Vintage Books, 1979), page 3.

This analysis of Development as discourse is based on Mic hel Foucault, The Archaeology of

Know/edge (New York, Harper Colophon Books, 1972); Michel Foucault, ‘Politics and thestudy of discourse’, in Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon and Peter Miller editors), The

Foucault Effect Chicago, IL, University of Chica go Press, 1991). pages 53-72.

Foucault 1972), op t i t , reference 5, pages 208-209.

Michel Foucault, The Use of Pleasure (New York, Vintage Books, 1985), page 9.

Gilles Deleure, Foucault Minneapolis, MN, University of Minnesota Press, 1987), pages

20-21.

Gustav0 Esteva, ‘Regenerating people’s space’, Alternatives, 12 l), 1987, page 136.

Ibid, pages 129-130.

Ma jid Rahnema, The Myth and Real i ty of Development: A Reader unpublished reader,

University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1986), page 1.

The main attempts at deconstructing Development are those by Sac hs and collaborators

who include Ivan lllich and several Third World authors discussed in this section). See

Sac hs editor), op t i t , reference 3; Frederique Apffel Marglin and Stephen Marglin editors),

Dominat ing Know/edge: Development, Culture and Resistance Oxford, Clarendon Press,1990); Adele Mueller, ‘The bureauc ratization of feminist knowledge: the case of women in

Development’, Resources for Feminist Research, 15(l), 1986, pages 36-38; Mueller, op t i t ,

reference 1; Ferguson, op t i t , reference 1; Escobar 1984), op t i t , reference 3; Escobar

1988), op t i t , reference 3; Arturo Escobar, ‘Culture economics and politics in Latin

American soc ial movements theory and research’, in Arturo Escobar and Sonia Alvarez

editors), The Making of Social Movements in Laf in America: Ident ity, Strategy and

Democracy Boulder, CO, Westview Press), 1992.

The main works consulted for this discussion include the following: D. L. Shet, ‘Grassroots

initiatives in India’, Economic and Polit ical Week/y, 79(6), 1984; D. L. Shet, ‘Alternative

development as politica l practice’, Alter nativ es, 12(2), 1987, pa ges 155-171; Rajni Khotari,

‘The non-party political process’, Economic and Polit ical Week/y, 79(5), 1984; Rajni Khotari,

‘Masses, classes and the state’, Alt ernati ves, 77(2), 1986, pages 167-183; Rajni Kothari, ‘On

humane governance’, Alter nativ es, 72(3), 1987, pages 277-290; Vandana Shiva, ‘Ecology

movements in India’, Alt ernati ves, 11(2), 1986, pages 255-273; Vandana Shiva, ‘The violence

of reductionistic science’, Alter nativ es, 72(2), 1987, pages 243-261; Vandana Shiva, Staying

Al ive: Women, Ecology and Development London, Zed Books, 1989); Rahnema, op t i t ,

FUTURES J une 1992



Refiecfions on ‘Developm ent‘ 435

14.

15.

16.

17.

18,

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.33.

34.

reference 11; Majid Rahnema, ‘Under the banner of development’, Development: Seeds o f

Change, l/2, 1986, pages 37-46; Majid Rahnema, ‘Power and regenerative processes in

micro-spaces’, International Social Sciences Journ al, 117, 1988, pages 361-375; Majid

Rahnema, ‘On a new variety of AIDS and its pathogens: homo economicus, development

and aid’, Alt ernati ves, 73(l), 1988, pages 117-136; Majid Rahnema, ‘Participatory actionresearch: the last temptation of Saint Development’, A/tern afives , 75(2), 1990, pages

199-226; Esteva, op tit, reference 9; Orlando Fals Borda, Resistancia en el San Jorg e

Bogota, Carlos Valencia Editores, 1984); Orlando Fals Borda, Retorno a La Tierra Bogota,

Carlos Valencia Editores, 1986); Orlando Fals Borda, Knowledge and People’s Power Delhi,

Indian Social Science Institute, 1988); Orlando Fals Borda, ‘Social movements and political

power in Latin America’, in Arturo Escobar and Sonia Alvarez editors), The Making of Social

Movements in Lat in America: Ident ity, Strategy and Democracy Boulder, CO, Westview

Press, 1992); Pramod Parajuli, ‘Power and knowledge in development discourse’, Interna-

tional Social Science /our , 127, pages 173-190. The reception or ‘consumption’, as some

would put it) of these works in the USA and Western Europe will not be treated in this

article. As these works and, not infrequently, their authors) circulate in alternative circles

of the First World, they enter into a complex cycle which tends to change the very nature of

the knowledge about the grassroots groups to which they refer. The grassroots, inevitably,

become the sign of something else. These problematic aspects of the travelling of theories

and theorists in the post-colonial world needs further elaboration. An initial statement in

this regard has been provided by James Clifford, ‘Notes on theory and travel’, Inscriptions,

5, 1989, pages 177-188.

Esteva, op t it, reference 9, page 135.

Rahnema, ‘On a new variety of AIDS . . .‘ op tit reference 13.

Fals Borda 1986)‘ op t it, reference 13, page 209.

Shiva 7987), op t it, reference 13; Shiva 1989), op t it, reference 13; Ashis Nandy, The

/nfimafe Enemy; Loss and Recovery of Self Under Co/o~ia/ism Delhi, Oxford University

Press, 1983); Ashis Nandy, ‘Shamans, savages and the wilderness: on the audibility of

dissent and the future of civilizations’, Alt ernati ves, 74(3); 1989, pages 263-278; Apffel

Marglin and Marglin, op t it, reference 12; Paul Feyerabend, Against Method London, New

Left Books, 1975).

Khotari 1987), op t it, reference 13, pages 283-285.

Shiva 1987), op t it, reference 13, pages 272 and 257.

The grassroots movements can be related to what Foucault calls ‘the insurrection of

subjugated knowledges’, and to Deleuze’s notions of ‘minor knowledge’ and, in general,

to their whole conception of political practice and strategy). See Michel Foucault, Language,

Cou~fer-Memos, Practice Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 1977); Michel Foucault,

~ower/Know~edge (New York, Pantheon Books, 1980); Cilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari,

Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature Minneapolis, MN, University of Minnesota Press, 1986);

Abdul Jan Mohamed and David Lloyd editors), The Nature and Context of Minor i ty

Discourse (New York, Oxford University Press, 1990).

Fals Borda 1992), op t it, reference 13.

Shet 1987), op t it, reference 13.

Fals Borda 1988), op t it, reference 13; Orlando Fals Borda and Muhammad Anisur Rahman

editors), Act ion and Knowledge. Breaking the Monopoly with Part ic ipatory Act ion-Research

(New York, Apex Press, 7991).

Nandy 19831, op cif, reference 17.

lohan Caltung, The True World s (New York, Free Press, 1980), pages 419 and 416.

George Marcus and Michael Fischer,

University of Chicago Press, 1985).

Antbrop o/ogy as Cuffural Cri t ique Chicago, IL,

In Colombia, for instance, only after 15 years of social movement activity have important

networks of movements been created. One of such networks, the M-19/Democratic

Alliance, which brings together a variety of social movements and a former guerrilla group,

has become one of the main political forces in the country. Similarly, some see the Brazilian

Workers’ Party PT) as the first party in the world to emerge out of coalitions of social

movements. See Fals Borda 19921, op t it, reference 23.

Ibid.

Fals Borda 1988 and 7991), op tit, reference 13. For a critique of PAR from within the group

of authors discussed in this article, see Rahnema 1990), op tit, reference 13.

Parajuli, op t i t , reference 13.

Shet 1987), op t it, reference 13, page 168.

Esteva, op t i t , reference 9.ibid.

Rahnema 1986), op t i t , reference 13.

FUTURES June 992



436 Rc ffec f ions on ‘Develop me nts

35. Ernest0 Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, Hege mo ny and Soc ial ist Sfrateg y l.ondon, Verso, 1985).

36. For a critical review of the European and Latin American soc ial movements literature, see

Escobar and Alvarez, op cif, reference 12. See also, for Western Europe, Alain Touraine,

The Voic e and the Eye . An Analysis of Soc ial Mo vem enfs Cambridge, Cambridge University

Press, 1981); Alain Touraine, The Return of the Acfor Minneapolis, MN, University ofMinnesota Press, 1988); Albert0 Melucc i, ‘The symbolic challenge of contemporary soc ial

movements’, Soc ial Resea rch, Z’(4), 1985; Albert0 Melucci, Nomads of the Present

Philadelphia, PA, Temple University Press, 1989); Laclau and Mouffe, op tit, reference 35.

37. Touraine 1981 and 1988), op t i t , reference 36.

38. See especially Elizabeth Lelin editor), Movimienfos Soc ia les y Democ rac ia Eme rgenfe

Buenos Aires, Centro Editor de America Latina, 1987); Fernando Calderon editor), Los

Mo vimiento s Soc k/ es Ante La Crisis Buenos Aires, CLACSO, 1986).

39. Ruth Cardoso ‘Movimentos Soc iais na America Latina’, Rev ista Brasileira da s Cien c iais

Soc iais, 3(l), 1983, page 33.

40. Laclau and Mouffe, op tit, reference 35; Ernest0 Laclau, ‘New soc ial movements and the

plurality of the soc ial’, in David Slater editor), New Soc ial Mov em e~fs and the State in Lat in

Amer i ca Dordrecht, the Netherlands, CEDLA), pages 27-42; Ernest0 Lac lau, ‘Po litics and

the limits of modernity’, in Andrew Ross editor), Unive rsal Ab an do n? The Polit ics of

Postmodernism Minneapolis, MN, University of Minnesota Press, 1988), pages 63-82;Chantal Mouffe, ‘Radica l democracy: modern or postmodern?‘, in Andrew Ross editor),

Universal Ab and on The Pol i t ics of Postmod ernism Minneapolis, MN, University of Minne-

sota Press, 1988), pages 31-45; Chantal Mouffe, ‘Toward a theoretical interpretation of

“New Social Movements”, in S. Hanninen and L. Palda n editors), Rethinking Marxism

Berlin, Argument Verlag, 1984), pages 139-145. In this discussion, I have singled out the

work of Laclau and Mouffe for ana lytica l and prac tical reasons. The two other important

European approaches to soc ial movements are those of Touraine and Melucc i, already

mentioned. In North America, studies of soc ial movements fall generally within the

‘resource mobilization’ paradigm, rather than the ‘identity centred’ paradigm dominant in

Western Europe and Latin America. For a review of North American literature, and its

possible relation to the European, see Escobar and Alvarez editors), op tit, reference 13;

Sidney Tarrow, ‘National politics and collective ac tion: recent theory and research in

Western Europe and the United States’, Annub Revie w o f Soc iology , 14, 1988, pages

42’1-440; Bert Klandermans and Sidney Tarrow, ‘Mobilization into soc ial movements:

synthesizing European and American approac hes’, in Hanspeter Kriesi, Sidney Tarrow and

Bert Klandermans editors), Internat iona l Soc ial Mo vem enfs Researc h. Vo lume 7. From

Struc ture to Ac fion London, J AI Press, 1988).

41. Manuel Castells, ‘High development, world development, and structural transformation: the

trends and the debate’, Afternatives, I? 3), 1986, pages 297-344; Samir Amin, Ma / d e v e / o p -

menf London, fed Books, 1990).

42. Stuart Hall, ‘Brave new world’, Soc ialist Rev iew , L(l), 1991, pages 57-64; David Harvey,

‘Flexibility: threat or opportunity. T’, Soc ialist Rev iew , 27(l), 1991, pages 65-78.

Grassroots approaches and alternative politics in the Third World Escobar 1992

Documents