Is there a "left" bias in development practice? (October 28, 2006)
Apparently I am the resident lefty of the expat house. No, not left-handed, but rather, dialectically down with the critical program. I think this label gets at some of the underlying assumptions about the kind of people that pursue the study and practice of development.
If we narrow this field down to U.S. expats in development, many are women, "liberal" or "left" leaning, white, and middle- to upper-class. Another large subfield are political conservative and very Christian, and I think this goes back to the historic role of churches and Christianity in missionary and development work. That said, I find myself as the token exception to the expat house. There are a lot of identities I have going for me on this one: I came from a political activist background; I identify strongly as a woman of color; and as a religious minority my attitudes towards domestic policy are decidedly pro-civil liberties. These "differences" are also probably heavily influenced by the fact that I am one of 3 (out of 7) non-economists and one of two with a deep civil rights background.
In several recent discussions, the standing joke has become that I am the person who is "out there" politically, at least relative to the others. I am sure part of this is my Bay Area bias, which I did not really believe was "out there" until I spent a summer in Washington, D.C. working in the executive branch during George W's first term in office. In some ways, there is a similar disorientation here in Busia expat-land. While I came into this job thinking I had no expectations of my peers, I realized this was naive. I thought that because this group is involved in some pretty exciting development research that people would have pretty exciting politics.
And they might. I mean, who am I to sweepingly judge someone's experiences or outlook? I do learn a lot, and I find myself doing much more listening than talking about different political outlooks (overall a good thing, I think). The most recent conversations we have had have included: whether certain (minority) populations in the U.S. are genetically predisposed to violence and poverty, philosophies underlying vegetarianism, and whether or not people should abort children who are going to be born with disabilities.
That said, I don't think that I am really so far out on a limb. Consider that we assume that poverty and its repercussions - generally a lack of access to resources, services, livelihood, and political voice - are not inherent facets of development, the economy, or "growth" (however defined). Instead, let us assume that this is the product of policies, systems, attitudes, and actions, and that further, these things all manufacture poverty in ways that are racialized, gendered, spacially-defined, etc. All these items - both the processes and the products - are normalized, defined, and created by societies. The (in)famous social construction, if you will.
Now, let us think of how we define authority. Who is an authority in local sustainable development? Is it the community devoted to subsistence agriculture who refuse to buy Novartis's genetically modified seeds and who also pay close attention to topsoil replacement, the water table, the role of reforestation, etc.? Or is it the World Bank? Is it USAID? DFID? CARE? Oxfam? That said, why do we place greater faith in one or the other? Which one do we legitimately think of as authoritative, and which one do we "want" to think of as authoritative? That is, where does our gut lead, and where do our minds lead?
Let's take it a step further. Let's extend the language and rhetoric of development (that the poor must pay to ensure the financial sustainability of projects they do not necessarily ask for, that something is broken in the social makeup of poor communities and must be fixed, that poor people are primarily responsible for their poverty), and we find ourselves looking at the same bylines we read in domestic newspapers and magazines. After all, isn't the poster-child for welfare, the single black mother, on welfare because she was irresponsible? Nevermind that the majority of welfare recipients are white, that many black women and mothers are the primary income owners in their homes, and that the number of black men in prison rivals the number of black men registered to vote in the U.S. All products, in my humble opinion, of a larger system of racialized and classed inequality, not the genetic or inherent characteristics of people of color communities.
If you begin thinking about the connections between policy, language, authority, and product, it is hard to ignore the impact of all these social constructions on society and on poverty. And when these connections seem so clear and obvious, how can you not align with an agenda that promotes justice, equality, and community? And if such a program is "left" or "liberal", then why is this derided as non-academic, non-quantifiable, or unproductive? If we continue with the dichotomous language of "left" and "right," then to be anything but "left" would be tantamout to being anti-equality, anti-justice, and anti-community. This is not my argument, but rather, an illustration of how stupid I think this entire left/right/middle classification system is. Further, I think it keeps people from seeing their common ground, and further still, it prevents people from having to define and defend where they stand. If everything is easily distilled into a position on a line, or on the fence, then we don't really have to think about the larger questions, conversations, and issues at hand. We can spend more of our time name-calling and trying to lump people into categories and camps instead of addressing the societal challenges that we have created and that we are responsible for resolving.