Definition and Pathologization of
Poverty
After WWII, the UN and World Bank defined 2/3 of the
world as ‘poor’ and in need of development
interventions. This is an example of objectification
‘Poverty’ also became pathologised, seen against the
‘norm’ of ‘developed’ countries: ‘illiterate,’
‘underdeveloped,’ ‘malnourished,’ ‘small farmers,’ or
‘landless peasants’. This is an example of dividing
practises.
Subjectification of development discourse: villagers in
Nepal began to differentiate themselves in terms of
being ‘bikasi’ (developed) or ‘abikasi’ (underdeveloped).
Subjectification is the second process that Foucault identifies
in the creation of discourse; it involves the identification of
subjects with the categories of discourse that have been set
up by discursive institutions and completes the circle of
power/knowledge.
Set up various technologies and knowledge
instruments through which ‘development’ would
be measured:
Levels of poverty: this was defined through
standards of living: those countries and regions in
which per capita income was less than US $100 per
year were defined as poor.
Yet large regions of the globe only used limited
money exchange at this time; they were largely
subsistence economies who produced and
exchanged goods locally or even traded goods, but
not with money.
These populations often involved household units that
both cultivated and consumed the goods they
produced. They were automatically defined as poor.
Hunters and gatherers, fishers and other subsistence
producers also became, through a stroke of the pen,
defined as poverty-stricken.
Development or Destruction?
Perhaps then, the goal of ‘development’ discourse was the destruction
of subsistence economies and societies and the introduction of market
economies so that American and other goods could then be sold
throughout the world?
The antidote to ‘poverty’ was usually the same prescription: increased
commercialization, especially of ‘peasant’ and ‘tribal’ agriculture.
But commercialization involved capital-intensive inputs that many
could not afford to purchase, e.g. Green Revolution technology. Many
lost their lands in the process.
Cash crops were substituted for subsistence crops. Rural areas lost
the capacity to feed themselves.
Capital intensity and cash crop production introduced new inequalities.
They were capital and not labour intensive and displaced people from
the land.
Led to a massive increase in ‘the unemployed’ and a huge low-cost
labour force.
Today, that labour force, often living at the margins of cities of urban areas, is
referred to as ‘the informal economy’.
In India, 92% of ‘new jobs’ are in the ‘informal sector’. In Latin America, 75%
of new jobs are in the informal sector.
– These jobs are characterized by low wages, temporary contracts, lack of
regulation, no social security benefits and lack of pensions, or unemployment
insurance. Also no health and safety regulations.
Development as Discourse
(Continuation)
Development and Politics
Allows certain questions to be asked, but
disallows other questions from being
asked.
Example: development becomes a matter
of economic and technical indicators in
which the social and cultural changes
involved become masked.
It deflects attention away from the politics
of distribution, or the destruction of
subsistence societies. In Ferguson’s
phrase, it is an anti-politics machine.