2.6.3 Politically engaged critical postcolonial reflection
Whilst the anti-development arguments of postdevelopment theorists have opened spaces in which to critique development programmes, due to the criticisms outlined,
21 The term subaltern refers to those viewed as subordinated or worse off in society. It is first used in a non-military sense by Gramsci and later adopted by postcolonial writers such as Guha (1982) and Spivak (1988).
the essentialising radical critiques are not employed as tools for this thesis. One reason for this is that the critiques are ‘empty’ (Agrawal, 1996) in that they fail to lead to suggested alternatives (Nederveen Pieterse, 1998). Instead, the approach in this thesis accepts development philosophically as something desired by all to seek improvements in livelihoods in some form. As Sylvester (1999: 710) points out, modernity is a desired option, and what other romantic aspirations do people have?
This is a question unanswered by postdevelopment theorists.
In contrast, the construction of a politically engaged critical postcolonial reflection on development is an approach that aims to seek empirical evidence of both enabling and constraining factors in contextual institutional environments. This process uncovers the realities of political and social relations in a production community and gives voice to that community. As introduced earlier, to construct a critical reflection this thesis draws upon both post-Marxist and postcolonial literature.
In support of such an approach, Mercer et al. (2003: 432) turn to recent developments in postcolonial studies ‘in order to think through more critically the relationships between power, knowledge, development, and development practice’. Adding to such growing literature on intersections between development studies and postcolonial thought,22 the discussion below demonstrates how this framework aims to address the shortcomings and criticisms of postdevelopment theorists outlined above. This
framework also addresses critics of postcolonial thought (such as Rajan, 1997) who point out a lack of concern with lived experiences such as poverty and human rights violations. In response it is argued, for instance by Sylvester (1999) and Mohan (2001), that the intersection of development studies with postcolonial thought advances critical concern with voice and daily needs of subalterns.
The approach of this thesis is not to reject development but engage with it and its relations to trade through critique (Corbridge, 1998; Sylvester, 1999). The first inspiration for this comes from the work of the following two authors whose ideas break with postdevelopment’s lack of acknowledgement of any development
accomplishments. In questioning the paradigm shift offered by postdevelopment and
22 For more on this see McEwan (2008); McFarlane (2006); McKinnon (2006); Pollard et al. (2009);
Sharp and Briggs (2006); Simon (2006); and Sylvester (1999).
the lack thereof, Nederveen Pieterse (1998) proposes a reflexive approach to modernity as a more enabling approach, versus rejecting modernity. Secondly, Peet (1999) posits a post-Marxist critical modernist position between the extremes of neoliberals and neoidealists (anti-developmentalists) that does not jettison modernity but rather ‘takes seriously objections to the modern enterprise of development, but still finds unrealised potentials in progress and modernity’ (1999:11) and, therefore, does not destroy associated potential future benefits.
Thus, the aim is to seek the potential in development by examining what can be learnt from programmes to date in order to enhance the potential spread of material benefits in different ways and in different contexts. This approach starts to address the critique of radical postdevelopment theory that only served to create more binaries. Instead, recognising the variability and flexibility of development (Agrawal, 1996) enables us to acknowledge a ‘diversification of developments’ (Rist, 2008: 137) since
development changes as it comes into contact with different societies. This leads into the key contributions of applying postcolonial thought to the analysis of development programmes. Postcolonial thought is influenced by Marxism and post-structuralism with an emphasis upon sites of difference (Power, 2003) and heterogeneity (Dirlik, 1994). These influences are represented in the works of postcolonial writers such as Gandhi (1998), Guha (1982), and Spivak (1988). They share with post-structuralism a spatial perspective with a desire to deconstruct categories given to others, such as producer communities. With Marxism they share a temporal perspective to highlight the historical formation of hierarchies and inequalities that shape the positions from which people speak. Manzo (2009) refers to this as the common frame of reference between postcolonialism and anti-colonialism.
A postcolonial approach then draws on what I refer to as post-Marxist critical explorations of power and authority of dominant groups in society to de-centre Marxist critiques (Slater, 1998) and highlight inequalities in a post-binary world (Hoogvelt, 1997). The turn towards a Marxist influenced postcolonial studies approach has been presented in a collection by Bartolovich and Lazarus (2002). In their introduction they argue that ‘a cultural analysis of the everyday is inseparable from questions of political economy’ (2002: 6). Therefore, retaining the critical elements of Marxist analysis is necessary to provide more room for reflections on
issues of political economy (such as labour practices) in postcolonial studies to generate a ‘critical knowledge of everyday life’,23 such as social relations within an agricultural production community.
The contributions of applying postcolonial thought to the analysis of development programmes begin with a resistance to homogenising postcolonial places and
romanticising the structure of societies in other places, instead promoting analysis of hybridity and complexity (Baaz, 2004; Mohan, 2001). By emphasising plurality, postcolonial thought allows us to challenge assumptions (Sharp, 2009) and neatly bounded categories to make visible a more complex geography that documents grounded ‘patchworks’ of lived realities (Mercer et al., 2003: 428) whilst also analysing global political economies and power structures that combine to create
‘locally meaningful forms of poverty and inequality’ (Radcliffe , 2005: 202).
A geographical version of postcolonialism, Sharp (2009: 6) argues, ‘is attentive to the ways in which texts are changed as they are translated into practice in particular places around the world’. A grounded approach enables examination of how
development programmes such as fair trade are transformed, reformulated, adopted, or resisted in different local encounters (Nustad, 2007: 41) generating different development experiences for different groups of people.24 This resonates with arguments from Massey (1994) for the need to understand underlying processes that shape places in different ways, because ‘geography matters’.
This approach to intersect postcolonial critique with development to explore how fair trade is experienced in different ways also enables this thesis to highlight criticisms of fair trade. Criticisms exposed through this thesis include continuing to make
assumptions of others, not challenging neatly bound categories, and essentialising about others and other places. This is in contrast to intersecting postcolonialism with development to differentiate between the conventional and widely rejected versions of modernisation-as-development and progressive, empowering visions…..that are substantively postcolonial’ (Simon, 2006:17). Using postcolonialism in this way Simon (2006) argues that one example of such a progressive, postcolonial strategy is fair trade, evidenced by positive impacts on lives of producers and workers. Here then
23 Bartolovich and Lazarus (2002:5) are quoting H. Lefebvre.
24 As explored through this thesis and recently in the work of Dolan (2008).
Simon (2006) is using the term postcolonial to categorise initiatives that are seen as alternative to mainstream development, thus creating a binary between conventional and alternative development. However, in this thesis postcolonial thought is used to critique fair trade from the perspective that despite some successes and introducing new ‘rules of the game’, it is still a set of values and standards designed in the global north and imposed on the south.
In agreement with Hoogvelt (1997), by removing structural binaries such as West and non-West, or conventional and postcolonial development, through a post-Marxist critique it is possible to identify inequalities at both global and local levels which are created temporally and spatially. As Radcliffe (2005) notes, such an approach offers development geographers a route to avoid notions of othering or romanticising about places by instead introducing analysis of a variety of social and political factors to deconstruct categories of low income countries and un-mask power relations within local places. This answers an earlier challenge posed to research by Skelton and Allen (1999: 5) who state that ‘diversity must be respected and reflected and indigenous knowledges must be investigated but not reified and romanticised’. As McCall (2005) argues, this starts a process to identify other forms of oppression that produce
numerous inequalities that are not solely attributable to criticisms of global capitalism, but also due to other influential practices such as patriarchy and racism within locales.
Methodologically, using a postcolonial lens gives voice and identity to all, including subordinated (subaltern) peoples (Hoogvelt, 1997: 158), and provides ‘complex and embodied accounts of lives and livelihoods’ (Pollard et al., 2009:138) with which we can ‘analyse the stuff of everyday postcolonial deprivation and desire’ (Sylvester, 1999: 719) that postdevelopment studies fail to achieve. This ‘stuff’ includes needs and priorities, but also starts to emphasise the positions from which people speak, who actually speaks, for whom, and under what conditions. Such a process avoids ignoring the role of local politics and the power of some local elites (Kiely, 1999; Everett, 1997) as in reality some local leaders on village or local development project committees may serve to advance their own interests (Nustad, 2007: 43). The empirical sections of this thesis advance this argument by highlighting the existence of local hierarchies and power relations that directly or indirectly may serve the interests of some members of producer communities more than others. In such an
environment there may be individuals who are either unable or unwilling to act ethically or altruistically as is often desired by those who construct people-centred development approaches.
Since the aim of this research is to understand the impact of a people-centred development approach in a postcolonial production community and to look for possible lessons to extend potential benefits to a wider population, this starts with an examination of different social and political relations of control (Peet, 1999: 11). To think of understanding and possibly reworking power balances requires an
examination of institutional environments that shape and govern allocating and distributing mechanisms. For this thesis, the above framework is employed as a lens to examine uneven ‘local playing fields’ as mechanisms of governance and the institutions that underpin them which operate at local as well as global levels.