Table of Contents

Anthropology and Development

The “Evil Twin”: How to Deconstruct it

Anthropology’s Relationship with Development

Linguistics and Development

This essay will review different works from the discipline to discuss this “evil dual” relationship. This section will focus on Ferguson’s article and the interplay between anthropology and development. As one tries understand Ferguson’s use, one will also examine the notion of “evil twin” in order to better understand the significance of development anthropology. As one attempts to determine if development is “uninvited” and “unwanted” within the context of today’s anthropology, the last section is the most important.

Anthropology and Development. Although the modern understandings about development have been popularized in recent years, the ideology they perpetuate is one that has existed since the age of enlightenment (Lewis 2005, 4). The rise of industrial capitalism would allow for the promotion of a universal history, backed up by Hegel’s theories. It was a way to understand the history of the world. This is what makes this different from modern development theories. It wasn’t used to “rationale for executing that history” (Cooper & Packard 1997: 7). This would change with the dawn of the 20th century and Truman’s speech in Bretton Woods. In reality, the development of a modern conception of development can be traced back to World War 2’s aftermath. Harry Truman was the 33rd President of America and declared the “southern areas’ to be “underdeveloped” (Sachs 1977: 15, Esteva93:7, Cooper & Packard 1997). The “conditions” that characterize economically advanced nations in Asia, Africa, or Latin America became the basis of development. It was used to describe the “social-cultural difference” on a global level (Venkatesan and Yarrow 2012, 1). This argument is to say that the argument that developing countries should strive for economic growth is a form that has been adopted by many. The modernization theory, which states that development is a “progressive move towards technologically complexer and more integrated forms “modern” society”, would become a popular paradigm in development theory (Long 1992, 18). Gardner, Lewis 2015. This means that while “well-being in an economy” may be a precondition for developing, it is not enough to define development. One must consider human rights and other social welfare factors to really mark development (Lewis, 2005: 3). This was the beginning of the Human Development Index. While economic development was still the primary goal, it was centered around the aim of reducing and eliminating poverty (Gardner (2015)). This refers the fact that economics continues to be the dominant discipline in the discourse following powerful Development institutions like IMF and World Bank (Fine, 2009 cf. Mosse 2015 LSE Podcast). This is a crucial point that anthropologists should remember, since the relationship between development and anthropology will also require the study of economics. Ferguson asserts that knowledge about development is closely linked to knowledge of “the shape and content of disciplinary knowledge” (1997 : 170). This is because anthropology isn’t the only twin in terms of development. Other disciplines, including economics, can affect its definitions or practices. This would be a challenge for anthropology because there are many different types of relationships. It exists also between economics and anthropology.

It was necessary to explore the history behind development in this essay. This essay has a lot of to do with the history, discomfort, and frustration with the project of developmental anthropology. In his classic book, Ancient Society Lewis Henry Morgan would advocate for a theory about cultural evolution that is influenced and influenced by ideas from the Enlightenment Age. Morgan 1877 argued that human culture could be broken down into seven stages. Each stage is marked out by some technological achievement. All societies aim to achieve civilization (ibid. ).

This book would be a major text in anthropology. I mention it because of the enlightenment heritage that anthropology has. Ferguson’s essay in 1997: 142 argues that evolutionism is not a valid idea. Edward Said’s seminal work titled Orientalism critiques this notion of evolution. He says that the “Orient almost was an European invention” (1978: 1). He says that the oriental was created or imagined by westerners to make it look bad and justify their colonial rule. In his classic book Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter Talal Asad adds to this story, pointing out that anthropology played a significant role in the colonial encounter. In his book, he argued that anthropology was ideologically part of the colonialism project. He claimed that anthropologists prior to independence were “apologists for colonialism” ( 1973, 15). Asad’s and Said’s work put the discipline in a crisis. As anthropologists were guilty of the discipline’s history, they felt guilty. It led to “crises” of representation, but it also perpetuated the tension between applied and pure anthropology.

Although I am not claiming that this guilt motivated it, I do believe it played an important role in distancing some analysts from more applied forms. It is easy to see why scholars such as Escobar use Asad’s argument to compare “development encounter” with “colonial encounter”, wherein they argue an anthropology that reflects colonialism’s relationship with development (1995: 14). James Ferguson, who is a post development scholar like Escobar might hold a similar perspective. In his description of the development and its associated anthropological study, he calls it the “evil brother”.

The “Evil Twin”: Deconstructing it This section will explore the concept of “evil brother” and present a possible alternative: a “moral sibling”. The relationship between the applied and pure disciplines has always been one that causes conflict. One side sees the other as second-rate morally and intellectually, the other as irrelevant politically and theoretically. (Gow 2002; 299). In 1997, Ferguson discussed the importance of understanding the implications of various forms of media.

This is a subject of discussion since Malinowski proposed a more practical approach to anthropology, which would be reflected in its contribution towards policy. Evans Pritchard, on the other hand, would prefer a different approach and separate himself from applied anthropology. (Lewis 2005; 1, cf. Grillo 2002). Ferguson describes this as a “Jekyll-and-Hyde conflict” in which the academic side is the wise doctor and the applied side refers to the evil one (1997: 170). He believes that this is only anthropology’s problem since it is also relevant to other disciplines such as Sociology and Political Science. (97: 170).

However, he is able to take his position in the debate by using the Jekyll-Hyde metaphor and the use of “evil” as a description of applied anthropology. He says it is because it contradicts the fundamental theoretical and policy commitments of its own discipline. Because they share the field’s distinct specialization, they are actually twins. . . developed” (ibid.) These are the characteristics that make them an “unwanted ghost” (ibid.) ).

David Gow would dispute the idea of the evil twin. Instead, he would argue for the moral twin of the anthropology and development. Gow claims Ferguson is questioning development-anthropology morally by using the word evil. Gow argues that the problem in the applied discipline of development anthropology is its inability to transform it into something that isn’t morally problematic (Gow 2002). He expands upon this point by arguing for a critical analysis (Gow 2002, 300) of the values that underlie development anthropology. This would help us understand the discipline better and make it a more moral one. Robert Chambers (amartya sen), Martha C Nussbaum and Martha C Nussbaum are all examples of the importance of the moral narrative. He asserts that anthropology has to identify and define its moral values. Therefore, the focus of any project should include the “quality the lives that will follow the attainment of these needs and rights.” (2002: 329).

You could avoid the “tyranny academic discipline, ideology, and political fashion” by structuring your development values around a moral problem, instead of an economic, or political, question. While his argument is persuasive and presents a brighter future of anthropology for development, there’s one instance in his work that is more perplexing. It is particularly puzzling when it is placed in the context a moral narrative. He quotes Robert Shenton’s development work from Michael Cowen. Szpotoicz 2015). He says that it is crucial for international development organisations to intervene since the “national elites of third world” are generally corrupt and do not care about moral forms of development.

This statement aligns with the idea that development promotes difference and claims the West is superior to the West in areas so-called “underdeveloped”. Although the entire narrative is quite disturbing, it does not negate his argument. While the idea that an anthropology is built around a moral narrative can be powerful, it might lead one to question the ethics of Gow’s own moral assumptions. However, this does not mean that it is superior or inferior to Ferguson’s Evil Twin. This section aims to compare Ferguson’s disregard of the discipline’s evil twin and Gow’s celebrations of the field’s moral twin (cf. Gardner (2015) proposed that five elements are essential for successful learning.

This is Anthropology’s Engagement with Development He believes that development and the field of developmental anthropology are threatening the very thing the discipline is passionate about studying. While he believes that the study about “modernizing individuals” could be of great policy and applied relevance, it can’t be considered “central to the more prestigious arenas of anthropological theorizing” (1997 : 146). Ferguson may have believed this was a major idea at the time he wrote his essay. However, it does not apply to current anthropology. It is now a subfield of digital and urban Anthropology that anthropology does not focus on primitive or local culture. The argument is that even though the theory of anthropology has little to do with the development aspect, it does address the issue in some way. Lewis’ assertion that anthropologists don’t have one stance on the subject of anthropology and development is reaffirmed by me. These subsections and paragraphs are intended to show how anthropology has evolved from studying development strictly through an application lens.

Katy Gardner and David Lewis plan to update, revise, and republish their book, Anthropology and Development. Challenges for 21st-century Anthropology, in 2015. This is because the concept of development has changed significantly since its original publication in 1996 (2015). The third world is not the only place where development can occur. The history of development shows that the term has moved beyond economics to include environmental issues. These new ideas, like sustainable goals, were also applicable to the so-called advanced countries.

This means that anthropology can be more than just studying “modernizing” people. It can also study “developed” and “modern” societies. It is also helpful to look beyond the notion of “modernizing areas” that only have active development projects as a place where development can be studied (Ferguson 1997:146). It would be possible to use an anthropological perspective on development to study Identity. Akhil Gopta’s postcolonial development work examines how “underdevelopment becomes identity in postcolonial society” (1999, x). It could also serve to study the development institutions. Richard Harper’s research on an IMF mission examines how data is collected and used in the institution’s reports.

It is possible to look at the development lens from many angles, including kinship, religion and gender. David Mosse claimed that a study of the development of today can be as broad as a study about everything during a lecture entitled “Anthropology and Development. Challenges and Opportunities for the 21stcentury”. The following two subsections will illustrate this point as one looks at the different way that anthropologists/social scientists have engaged with the notion of development.

Development and LinguisticsJonathan Crrush would argue that his anthology on development should be separated from other works by saying that he and his contributors must focus on the “texts and words of development” (1995, 3). The project is not the focus of their attention, but the written, narrated or spoken aspects of development. Because a development text’s purpose is to persuade people of one vision, they focus on language (1995: 22). While Porter makes the argument with multiple works, I will be focusing on Doug Porter’s essay “The Homesickness For Development Process”. Porter describes the ways that metaphors of practice reproduce the “authoritarian nature of development” (1995, 81). It could be a local or national development project, but all metaphors have authoritarian effects. These metaphors have a consistency and persistence despite the changes in development meaning since World war 2. This is achieved by looking at three types metaphors. The first, or organizing metaphor, is for post-war 2 types of development. The second, most important, refers master metaphors that don’t have to be restricted by space or time. The third metaphor is the one that refers to specific projects or geographical locations (1995, 64).