4.1 Power
45
Social investment, for instance, can be a source of oppression if all parties are not
provided with transparent information and space for participation. Guideline documents can likewise represent a source of oppression that disempowers certain parties
by excluding them from the decision-making process, as investigated in Chapter 7.
As a tool of false generosity, social investment represents a neo-colonial
1 form
of power and thus the works of Escobar (1992, 1995, 2002, 2004), Shrestha (1995)
and Andreotti (2011), help further develop my theoretical framework.
4.1.2 Power in the Work of Escobar, Andreotti and Shrestha
This research is also informed by Escobar (1992, 1995, 2002, 2004), Shrestha (1995)
and Andreotti’s (2011; see also Andreotti & Dowling, 2004) critical perspectives of
development and capitalism. Escobar (1992, 1995, 2002, 2004) argues that development is a social construction which serves Eurocentric domination by big business and nations. It is a construct used to justify ‘developed’ nations and/or institutions’ dominance over the ‘developing’ nations and/or groups (Escobar, 2002;
Rahnema, 1991). Within this understanding, development is seen as a mechanism
of control. Development is strategically—discursively and materially (in economic
terms)—constructed by western nations as a new form of colonialism (Escobar, 2002;
Rahnema, 1991).
Escobar’s (1992, 1995, 2002, 2004) account of development as a mechanism that
determines what and who should be treated as ‘underdeveloped’ corresponds with
Shrestha’s experience of development. Shrestha (1995) draws on his own personal
biography to illustrate the impact development had in his life when he became
‘conscious’ of ‘lacking development’:
So, poor and hungry I certainly was. But underdeveloped? I never thought – nor did anybody
else – that being poor meant “underdeveloped” and lacking human dignity. True there is no
comfort or glory in poverty, but the whole concept of development (or underdevelopment)
was totally alien to me. (Shrestha, 1995, p. 105)
According to Shrestha (1995) development is a construct produced and reproduced
across time and space to lead the way to a “monolithic culture of materialism, which
stigmatises poverty and the poor” (Shrestha, 1995, p. 103).
Andreotti (2011) uses the term ‘modernity’ rather than development but her ideas
are also helpful here. Andreotti (2011) refers to modernity as a global hegemonic
model of power based on principles of capital accumulation. In Andreotti’s terms,
development can be seen as framed by the “coloniality of power” (Andreotti, 2011,
p. 383), or articulation of race, labour, space and people according to the economic
demands of ‘developed’ nations (Andreotti, 2011). In this sense, development can
be seen as akin to European colonialism; where once there were colonies, now there
are countries that need development (Mignolo, 2012).
1 A neo-colonial form of power reproduces ideals of superiority of a specific nation or group over
others.
45
Social investment, for instance, can be a source of oppression if all parties are not
provided with transparent information and space for participation. Guideline documents can likewise represent a source of oppression that disempowers certain parties
by excluding them from the decision-making process, as investigated in Chapter 7.
As a tool of false generosity, social investment represents a neo-colonial
1 form
of power and thus the works of Escobar (1992, 1995, 2002, 2004), Shrestha (1995)
and Andreotti (2011), help further develop my theoretical framework.
4.1.2 Power in the Work of Escobar, Andreotti and Shrestha
This research is also informed by Escobar (1992, 1995, 2002, 2004), Shrestha (1995)
and Andreotti’s (2011; see also Andreotti & Dowling, 2004) critical perspectives of
development and capitalism. Escobar (1992, 1995, 2002, 2004) argues that development is a social construction which serves Eurocentric domination by big business and nations. It is a construct used to justify ‘developed’ nations and/or institutions’ dominance over the ‘developing’ nations and/or groups (Escobar, 2002;
Rahnema, 1991). Within this understanding, development is seen as a mechanism
of control. Development is strategically—discursively and materially (in economic
terms)—constructed by western nations as a new form of colonialism (Escobar, 2002;
Rahnema, 1991).
Escobar’s (1992, 1995, 2002, 2004) account of development as a mechanism that
determines what and who should be treated as ‘underdeveloped’ corresponds with
Shrestha’s experience of development. Shrestha (1995) draws on his own personal
biography to illustrate the impact development had in his life when he became
‘conscious’ of ‘lacking development’:
So, poor and hungry I certainly was. But underdeveloped? I never thought – nor did anybody
else – that being poor meant “underdeveloped” and lacking human dignity. True there is no
comfort or glory in poverty, but the whole concept of development (or underdevelopment)
was totally alien to me. (Shrestha, 1995, p. 105)
According to Shrestha (1995) development is a construct produced and reproduced
across time and space to lead the way to a “monolithic culture of materialism, which
stigmatises poverty and the poor” (Shrestha, 1995, p. 103).
Andreotti (2011) uses the term ‘modernity’ rather than development but her ideas
are also helpful here. Andreotti (2011) refers to modernity as a global hegemonic
model of power based on principles of capital accumulation. In Andreotti’s terms,
development can be seen as framed by the “coloniality of power” (Andreotti, 2011,
p. 383), or articulation of race, labour, space and people according to the economic
demands of ‘developed’ nations (Andreotti, 2011). In this sense, development can
be seen as akin to European colonialism; where once there were colonies, now there
are countries that need development (Mignolo, 2012).
1 A neo-colonial form of power reproduces ideals of superiority of a specific nation or group over
others.