diverse concerns and very different strategies aimed at assisting in the generation
of programs and projects for the construction of endogenous well-being and
development.
7
Now it is our intention to explore the ways in which the various participants in
an intervention project are related, starting with two poles, and then we will
consider the nuances, hybridizations, and combinations in the various stages
involved in these processes of work. On the one hand there is the classical relationship in which external agents espouse a predesigned justification, generate a
local need, and are usually the figures who coordinate, direct, plan, and finance the
project. This scheme involves a vertical power relationship, since the participating
population acquires a passive role in the construction and design of the actions—
receiving, participating in a limited manner, or being consulted occasionally as to
their experience in the process.
However, we have seen cases in which a local organization or collective poses a
need and then searches for intervention groups that might be able to satisfy that
need. This strategy also involves a model of vertical interaction but in the opposite
direction; that is, it is centered on the local initiative, which presents its intentions
and interests, and validates and allows the entry of other party into its context,
while also evaluating, sanctioning, and monitoring the various targets of the
intervention process. The notable features in this scenario include the authority of
the local groups, their level of organization for the establishment of actions, and
their active approach to making decisions.
Both models have different advantages and disadvantages in terms of their
methods, processes, and outcomes at the time of implementation, but what we
want to do now is experiment with the nuances, hybridizations, and combinations,
by including models of endogenous development as well as processes for the
strengthening of intellectual abilities (pedagogical process), for making connections (organizational process), and for participation (self-managed process) among
the stakeholders. In order to begin, it is necessary for the intervening agency to
change, through dialog, its objectives, intentions, and ways of planning and
financing, so that the relationship between the parties involved may be able to
build new challenges and set new destinations (Fig. 16.1).
In cases of interventions promoted by local collectives, we have seen that it is
essential that, over time, an ethic of knowledge be constructed, through a dialog of
knowledge, which implies that the complementarity of ignorance for the construction of a collaborative logic is possible.
8 These kinds of experiences promote
the creation and design of possible alternatives for the collective reflection upon
7 For example: community development, rural development, research, participatory action, and
ethno-development (Fals 1991, Toledo and Barrera-Bassols 2008).
8 For more information see Díaz et al. (2011), Lazos (2011), Leff (2011) on the processes of
production-based innovation in peasant farming units, technological linkage in local contexts, the
transnationalization of agriculture, and multiple environmental rationalities. They all agree that
peasant farming systems are able to assimilate knowledge that is different, academic, and relevant
to their local needs, and also to use it on a global level.
16 When Modernity is Not Enough
469
of programs and projects for the construction of endogenous well-being and
development.
7
Now it is our intention to explore the ways in which the various participants in
an intervention project are related, starting with two poles, and then we will
consider the nuances, hybridizations, and combinations in the various stages
involved in these processes of work. On the one hand there is the classical relationship in which external agents espouse a predesigned justification, generate a
local need, and are usually the figures who coordinate, direct, plan, and finance the
project. This scheme involves a vertical power relationship, since the participating
population acquires a passive role in the construction and design of the actions—
receiving, participating in a limited manner, or being consulted occasionally as to
their experience in the process.
However, we have seen cases in which a local organization or collective poses a
need and then searches for intervention groups that might be able to satisfy that
need. This strategy also involves a model of vertical interaction but in the opposite
direction; that is, it is centered on the local initiative, which presents its intentions
and interests, and validates and allows the entry of other party into its context,
while also evaluating, sanctioning, and monitoring the various targets of the
intervention process. The notable features in this scenario include the authority of
the local groups, their level of organization for the establishment of actions, and
their active approach to making decisions.
Both models have different advantages and disadvantages in terms of their
methods, processes, and outcomes at the time of implementation, but what we
want to do now is experiment with the nuances, hybridizations, and combinations,
by including models of endogenous development as well as processes for the
strengthening of intellectual abilities (pedagogical process), for making connections (organizational process), and for participation (self-managed process) among
the stakeholders. In order to begin, it is necessary for the intervening agency to
change, through dialog, its objectives, intentions, and ways of planning and
financing, so that the relationship between the parties involved may be able to
build new challenges and set new destinations (Fig. 16.1).
In cases of interventions promoted by local collectives, we have seen that it is
essential that, over time, an ethic of knowledge be constructed, through a dialog of
knowledge, which implies that the complementarity of ignorance for the construction of a collaborative logic is possible.
8 These kinds of experiences promote
the creation and design of possible alternatives for the collective reflection upon
7 For example: community development, rural development, research, participatory action, and
ethno-development (Fals 1991, Toledo and Barrera-Bassols 2008).
8 For more information see Díaz et al. (2011), Lazos (2011), Leff (2011) on the processes of
production-based innovation in peasant farming units, technological linkage in local contexts, the
transnationalization of agriculture, and multiple environmental rationalities. They all agree that
peasant farming systems are able to assimilate knowledge that is different, academic, and relevant
to their local needs, and also to use it on a global level.
16 When Modernity is Not Enough
469