a) Development projects often characterize the situation as ‘Us’ (the developed world, the Northerner) helping ‘Them’ (the underdeveloped South, the Southerner). This instantaneously categorizes people as the rich or the poor, the strong or the weak, and the capable or the helpless. This degrades and insults the people in the latter categories. Who would want to be called poor, weak and helpless? Who would allow themselves to be labeled by these terms? If you don’t want to be known by such terms, why would you categorize others using them? Simply by saying, ‘we are going to help them’, the North is demonstrating its belief in its own superiority. Recall the colonization of the minds technique that was used by invading countries who occupied foreign territories. If ‘we’ are capable of helping ‘them’, yet they are not able to return the favour, then we are superior in our ability. If one is superior, the other must be the inferior. So the playing field is unequal. Similarly, if one says, ‘we are going to help them help themselves’, we are still dividing people along the lines of the powerful and the weak. This is the equivalent of saying that, while conceding that eventually the Southerner will also become powerful, they can only do so with our help. So again, the Northerner is positioned as the powerful.
b) These divisions are often taken for granted. Rarely do those using these characterizations associate historical events that took place with the creation of these divisions. Even if the terms strong and weak, rich and poor, powerful and helpless, etc, are accurate, it is important to note that the origins of these situations are historically based. They are not innate. And the history that caused these circumstances to be arrived at are not easily forgotten by all, so it is important to remember the past, because it should determine the actions taken in the future. Even worse, when one doesn’t consider the historical past which caused inequalities to arise it is extremely easy to assume that people’s circumstances and poverty are caused by the individual themselves. We may end up blaming people for their own poverty, believing them too ignorant to improve their own circumstances.
c) If the theoretical basis of the Us vs Them dichotomy is not understood, then the material division between the Northerner and the Southerner will reinforce the power divide. That is, once development workers enter a community, the difference between the rich and the poor becomes clear. To an individual who is unhappy with their life, who lives in poverty, who is prevented from moving or living as they wish, when a wealthy person enters their community, all of their differences are brought into sharp focus. The freedom and advantages that the Northerner enjoys become apparent to the Southerner, which can result in anger, embarrassment, and a loss of hope. For a person trapped in an overbearing state, stripped of their rights and freedoms, struggling to achieve the basic necessities of life, the ability of a foreigner to come and go from their country with ease is an affront to their dignity. Imagine their shame when a wealthy person views their poverty with curiosity. Imagine their anger with someone who has little understanding of their dire circumstances, whose wealth and rights allows them to travel freely in a nation where the majority of people live in dire straits. In these cases, simply entering a country without any understanding of or respect for a country’s background can become a means of flaunting one’s western rights and ‘superiority’.
d) The race to the bottom. If we apply art to life, our actions would follow the archetypal model: the strongest wants to help the weakest. Thus, the affluent only want to help the poorest of the poor, as this will demonstrate their extreme strength. This forces some individuals, communities, countries and so on, to seek the most extreme poverty possible, to desire a situation even worse than their actual reality, in order to ‘merit’ the attention of the rich. These individuals race to the bottom, seeking to be the worst off, because it may increase their chances of receiving external aid. This mimics the argument used by conservative politicians when arguing against unemployment insurance.
e) ‘We’ often assume that we know what ‘They’ want or need. The Northerner looks at a community from an outsider’s point of view, decides what is needed to improve the situation, and then insists on doing it. Consultation with the Southerner may be non-existent. Or, when communication does occur, the Northerner may not understand or appreciate the Southerner’s desires, and may dismiss them as superfluous or as the result of ‘Their’ ‘ignorant’ understanding of the situation. This disrespects the knowledge and wisdom of the Southerner, and again reinforces the mindset that ‘we’ are better, and ‘we’ know best.
These are some of the greatest problems with development work. However, it is important to note that these are only potential consequences; they are not guaranteed to happen. In many cases, the stereotypical idea of development comes true: the Northerner arrives, the Southerner is happy and thankful, and livelihoods are improved. In other cases, all of the psychological and physical consequences described above occur. Each situation is different. What is important is to recognize that both reactions are possible. In my opinion, development workers should not expect to be welcomed with open arms. Development workers should fight against the urge to characterize ‘Us’ from ‘Them’. nor should they adopt a savior attitude. Development workers should level the playing field between themselves and the individuals from the community they are working with, by expecting to learn and gain as much from the people they work with as the people are learning and gaining from them.
Those are ways that development workers can psychologically prepare to engage in development done right. In terms of realistic actions, certain approaches to development can be seen as less controversial than others. In particular:
1) Development work post-conflict can often be done less controversially than other forms of development work. As mentioned above, when doing development work in communities, development workers often unconsciously believe that they are better than the ones they are working with, because their situation and livelihood is superior to the one of those they are helping. Conflict situations, however, are different. The majority of people affected by conflict are innocent civilians. Therefore the term victim is an appropriate definition of those who have lived under conflict. Victimization implies helplessness. The everyday individual, whether rich or poor, Northerner or Southerner, does not like being called a helpless victim. But following a conflict, it is more acceptable to be termed a victim, because oftentimes individuals are helpless against the forces of war, and thus it is an accurate definition. Also, for the Northerner, if someone is a victim of a conflict, it is not that person’s fault that they are poor, hurt, or whatever condition they might be in. Anyone can become embroiled in a conflict which they did not cause, nor deserve. Thus persons who underwent conflict are more willing to accept aid; and the persons delivering the aid are less likely to blame the individuals receiving aid, diminishing the superior/inferior dichotomy.
2) Working with children can be less controversial than working with adults, if done properly. Similarly to victims of conflict, children are more willing to be termed as victims, and they often cannot be blamed for the circumstances they are in. Thus providing aid to children is less condescending than it is to adults. However, note that the aid provided to children must be carefully scrutinized, because programs delivered to children can become, or be interpreted as, attempts to regain control over an entire population, or to re-colonize the minds of a community.
3) Fair Trade. This may not at first appear to be a development project, but in reality anything that results in the improvement of livelihoods can be deemed development. This is one of the most effective forms of development, in my opinion, because it truly does establish an equal relationship between the Northerner and the Southerner, when done correctly. Fair trade demands that a living and fair wage be granted to workers. This demands that people around the world receive no less than the same courtesy granted to Northerners. The principal behind fair trade isn’t that ‘we’ need to help ‘them’ because we can, but rather that, because all individuals are equal, we should all receive the same benefit from employment.
4) Development work via democratic governments. People seldom submit themselves to the control of others willingly. This only occurs when a level of trust, respect, and responsibility is developed between two or more parties, such as when a democratically-elected government is brought to power. If the people elect a democratic government, then it can be assumed that whatever decisions the government makes reflect the will of the population. Thus, undertaking development work in partnership with a democratically-elected government is a satisfactory way of ensuring that the development taking place is approved of by, and in the interest of, the Southerner.
Thus development work can be very controversial. It can psychologically reinforce concepts of superiority and inferiority. However, if done right, development can have positive results, without incurring negative consequences.
« return.