Development PIC
1NC
Text: [Insert plan text sans the word development]
Use of the word “development” is colonialist and perpetuates the first/third
world divide
Gilbert 4 (Jane – independent clinical psychologist, facilitator, and writer, “Development”: the
power of a word to define our world,
http://www.janegilbert.co.uk/unpublished%20papers/Development%20%20the%20power%20of%20a%20word%20to%20define%20our%20world.pdf, JS)
thinking cannot be detached from words , whenever a person uses the word
“development” the associated web of meanings — growth, evolution, maturation — are also
implicitly assumed. Overall, in present day usage “development" now always implies a favourable change, a
step from the simple to the complex, from the inferior to the superior, from worse to better. The word indicates that
one is doing well because one is advancing in the sense of a necessary, ineluctable, universal
law and toward a desirable goal. The word “development” is not value free. One of the most
damaging implicit value judgments in its contemporary usage in the context of international aid is the
implication that non Western countries, cultures or peoples are somehow insufficient or not
good enough in themselves. Therefore they have to “develop” into something else — that
Because
something else being modelled on Western culture. Therefore the concept of “development"
also implicitly assumes some kind of cultural superiority in those who are already
“developed", i.e. the industrialised Western nations, compared with those who are
“underdeveloped". These assumptions underlying the word ‘‘development’' have profound implications. Many
people in rich countries associate the concept of “development” with the idea that all people on the planet are moving
along one single track towards some state of “maturity” or “progress”. Those in low income countries who
make up two thirds of the world's population have to perceive and accept themselves as
“underdeveloped" in order to receive “development” aid. These “mindsets", often implicit,
uncritically accepted, and rarely fundamentally challenged, are some of the most powerful belief systems
underlying current relationships between countries. In addition to particular “mindsets” described above,
the ongoing use of the word “development” also produces feelings of confusion in those who are not directly involved in
the “aid business”. If ‘‘development'’ is a good thing, why are so many people in the world becoming poorer? Why do the
images of poverty on our TV screens and the statistics on the news bulletins never seem to show any improvements? The
use of “development” as a means of describing our present global inequalities, and as a
prescription for changes in these inequalities, compounds this confusion, prevents other,
more accurate paradigms from being articulated and discussed, and obscures the reality of
what is happening. Some of the other implicit assumptions of include the following: The concept of
“development” assumes a “one way traffic” — rich countries provide aid, low income
countries receive. By describing this exchange as “development” in low income countries,
there is no assumption of equality, and the wisdom and knowledge of other cultures is not accorded equal status.
The “development" paradigm also assumes the superiority of a particular world view — the
West's rational/scientific/technological worldview. This ideology assumes that
technological progress is always a “good thing” and that any damage to the natural world
can be overcome by a technological solution. The “benefits” of market forces, economic growth and
consumerism as a basis for society are assumed and unquestioned. o It assumes the primacy of individuality and the
fulfilment of individual’s “needs”, rather than the promotion of social cohesion, social responsibility, and supportive social
structures. The Western scientific paradigm assumes that the natural world is to be exploited, to be used for man's benefit
with little regard for the consequences. Western “civilisation” is now fundamentally divorced from nature and the natural
world — for example in factory farming, pollution of land, destruction of landscape. Societies who are in harmony with
nature and the seasons, and which practise stewardship, care of the natural world and long term sustainability are not
actively valued. The use of the word “development” does not assume that the ways of life of
other cultures are diverse and incomparable ways of human existence, but are somehow
“lacking”. There is an implicit assumption that other countries/cultures have to “catch up”
to Western “standards”.
The word development should be rejected
Rist 7 (Gilbert - honorary professor at the Graduate Institute of International and Development
Studies in Geneva, “Development as a buzzword”, Development in Practice, August 2007,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25548245?seq=1&uid=3739800&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=2
1104551799513, JS)
It should be clear by now why
'development' must be considered a toxic word , as I half-jokingly suggested
at the beginning of this article. As a buzzword, it has been used time and again to promote a system that
is neither viable, nor sustainable, nor fit to live in. The (substantial) ¶ benefits that it still confers on a tiny
minority are not enough to justify its continuing acceptance, ¶ in view of the lethal dangers that it entails. This is being
progressively, if reluctantly, admitted. ¶ The question therefore remains: given the amount of information that scientists have
gathered ¶ on the manifold natural (actually human-made) hazards that may impinge on our daily lives, ¶ why is it that we do
not believe in what we know to be certain? The answer, probably, lies ¶ in the fact that our belief in 'development'
is still too strong to be undermined by scientific certainty. Our collective behaviour is
strangely determined by what Levy-Bruhl, almost a century ago, described as the 'pre-logical mentality'
¶
held to be characteristic of 'primitive peoples'! A ¶ radical change of mind is therefore required in order to anticipate possible
¶ - or likely ¶ - ¶ catastrophes. The idea is not to revive the figure of the prophet of doom, nor to wring one's ¶ hands, but to
take the impending catastrophe so seriously that it will eventually not happen (Dupuy 2002): just as the Japanese anticipate
earthquakes or tsunamis, take catastrophes for ¶ granted, adapt their behaviour to this conviction and enforce anti-seismic
construction standards ¶ so that, when earthquakes actually occur, casualties are minimal in comparison with what ¶ would
happen in other countries. From then on, we must resort to the heuristic of fear, to anticipate what we might experience
when the worst happens, in order to prevent it from happening, ¶ instead of deluding ourselves with the unverified idea,
implicit in the notion of 'development', ¶ that tomorrow things will be better. ¶ A change could be conceivable if we recall the
Amerindian wisdom that teaches us that 'we ¶ hold the Earth in trust for our children'. But it also entails changes in our daily
life, particularly ¶ in the Northern hemisphere. These are often presented, in a moralistic tone, as a way of vindicating
austerity or as a rationing process. But these measures should be considered as entailing ¶ not a loss, but rather a gain: there
is a positive side to restoring a sense of limits. Instead of viewing 'development' as the history of
progress, we could also look upon it as eine Verlusts-geschichte, a history of successive losses - ¶
which, again, mainly concerns not only the natural ¶ environment, but also social bonds and conviviality.12 ¶ The time
has come - and it is indeed high time - to debunk the 'development' buzzword. To do so means that
we must define it properly - relying on actual social practices, rather than ¶ wishful thinking. We must
be aware of its inclusion in a corpus of beliefs that are difficult to shatter, expose its
mischievous uses, and denounce its consequences. The most important thing, however, is to
make it plain that there is life after 'development' - certainly a different one from what we in the
¶
¶
privileged regions are used to, but there is no evidence to suggest that ¶ we would lose on such a deal.
2NC
Colonialism Extension
The word development props up imperial wars and environmental destruction
Penney 6 (Simon - completing his Masters Degree in Global Issues in Contemporary Mission at
Redcliffe College, “Does Development Work? Asking the Question Again in the Shadow of the
Empire”, October 2006,
http://encountersmissionjournal.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/shadow_of_the_empire_14.pdf, JS)
The word ‘development’ is itself full of unspoken colonialism ; to say that development is
required, is to assume that there is undevelopment. This is most often done from a Western
perspective and therefore, anywhere where people do not subscribe to Western values, must
be in need of development. Once again in order to ensure that I am not accused of gross arrogance, please be
¶
assured I am all for children being saved from HIV and given clean¶ drinking water; however if the sole purpose is to create
new markets, new economic ¶ components, new fuel for the fire of the global economy then I am simply asking the
question¶ can this be seen as good, or Godly, ‘development’. In fact is this not just the current ¶ manifestation of Egypt,
Rome, the beast of the Earth (Rev 13), a commercial power in¶ opposition to God’s love? Looking through the various
magazines concerning development that regularly come across ¶ my desk, the focus is nearly always on the economic, and
governance. Environmental and ¶ ‘social’ development (what ever that means!?) is sometimes mentioned, but is certainly ¶
second fiddle to the need to ‘make poverty history’. ¶ Before, once again, I am accused of heresy, I would like to point out
that my organisation has ¶ been a firm supporter of the ‘Make Poverty History’ campaign, almost since its inception. ¶
However this serves to illustrate my point, if ‘making poverty history’ requires the extension of¶ a global economic Empire,
then surely as Christians we must at the very least be asking¶ questions. How can we square this circle? ¶ There are many of
you who may now be saying, ah, but you see, we are all in it, we are all ¶ part of this Empire whether we like it or not, and
that is a valid point. The Empire is strong and constantly reminding us of the peace and
prosperity it has delivered. Interestingly, it forgets to tell us of all the disbenefits that it has also
brought. This is left to the ‘looney left’,¶ the new agers and various other fringe social groupings, and who listens to
them? Only ¶ those who have ears, I suspect. ¶ There is no doubt in my mind as an environmental professional that an
economic system based on individual greed and lack of contentment has wrought massive
environmental damage. I am also reliably informed that it is a major contributor to a widening gap between rich
¶
and poor even in the West. This includes the breakdown of family order and the¶ consumerisation of everything, which in
turn leads to all types of addictions, from sex to¶ retail. ¶ At least, you may say, we have not had a major war to fight in
Europe for nearly 70 years! ¶ The Empire claims to deliver peace to our homelands; however recent
wars in Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and the Middle East as well as the upsurge in
terrorism must at least bring a thinking Christian to question the claims that the Empire is as
beneficial as the advertisements that streak across our computer screens, mobile telephones, fax machines,
television screens, and ipods (all products of ‘development’) would have us believe.
¶
The word development socially constructs those who are said to need
“development” as inferior to western nations
Pigg 93 (Stacy Leigh - Professor of Anthropology at Simon Fraser University, “Unintended
Consequences: The Ideological Impact of Development in Nepal”, South Asia Bulletin,
http://cssaame.dukejournals.org/content/13/1_and_2/45.full.pdf, JS)
This is the implicit premise in which the rai son d’etre of development institutions can be found, and ¶ its
corollary is a formulation about the identity of those who need development. Esteva (1994: 10)
reminds us that: ¶ ...
for two-thirds of the people on earth, this positive meaning of the word
‘development’-profoundly rooted after two centuries of its social construction-is a reminder
of what they are not. It is a reminder of an undesirable, undignified condition. Inevitably
where there is a push for progress through development, there is the creation of a state of
backwardness. Where there are institutions and experts with answers, there must necessarily be people who have
¶
nothing but need.
¶
¶
Neoliberalism Module
The term development is linked to euro-centric neoliberalism
Sagoe 12 (Cecil - Deputy Features Editor of e-IR and is a PhD candidate in Urban Geography at
UCL, “The Neo-Colonialism of Development Programs”, 12 August 2012, http://www.eir.info/2012/08/12/the-neo-colonialism-of-development-programs/, JS)
Leszek Kolakowski (1990) notes that each historical period has a number of basic presuppositions which inspire its values,
beliefs, aspirations and reactions. Therefore in order to gain a more sufficient understanding of what neoliberal (mainstream) development can be conceptualised as, the presuppositions which inform it must be
properly identified. In order to do this the term development must be located in its historical context.
Zubairu Wai (2007) argues that development has its historical roots in the European Enlightenment
of the eighteenth century through the conception of progress. This European conception of
progress is intimately linked with European notions of modernity, which informs neoliberal understandings of what development is. For example, European modernity attributes centrality to
national economic growth and democracy, which results in economic and political development, whilst rejecting projects
such as community development (Pieterse 1991). From this, we can start to see that European notions of
modernity informed the neo-liberal perspective and hence informed neo-liberal notions of
development.
AT: Re-Appropriation
They can’t disconnect the word “development” from the broader westernized
discourse of development
Pieterse 2k (Jan Nederveen - Mellichamp Professor of Global Studies and Sociology in the Global
& International Studies Program at UC Santa Barbara, “After post-development”, p. 178, Third World
Quarterly, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01436590050004300, JS)
Development5 Westernisation¶
The debate over the word ‘development’ is not merely a question of
words. Whether one likes it or not, one can’t make development different from what it has
been. Development has been and still is the Westernisation of the world (Latouche, 1993: 160).
According to Escobar (1992), the problem with ‘development’ is that it is external, based on the
model of the industrialised world, and what is needed instead are ‘more endogenous discourses’. The assertion
¶
¶
¶
of ‘endogenous development’ calls to mind dependency theory and the ‘foreign bad, local good’¶ position (Kiely, 1999).
According to Rajni Kothari, ‘where colonialism left off, development took over’ (1988: 143).1 This view is
as old as the critique of¶ modernisation theory. It calls to mind the momentum and pathos of
decolonisation, the arguments against cultural imperialism, CocaColonisation, McDonaldisation and
the familiar cultural homogenisation thesis, according to which Western media, advertising and
consumerism induce cultural uniformity.
AT: Not Functionally Competitive
The words they use in the plan text shape the way the plan is implemented –
specifically in the context of development
Cornwall 7 (Andrea - professor of anthropology and development in the school of global studies
at the University of Sussex, “Buzzwords and Fuzzwords: Deconstructing Development Discourse”,
p. 471, Development in Practice, August 2007, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25548244, JS)
Words make worlds. The language of development defines worlds-in-the-making,
animating and justifying intervention in currently existing worlds with fulsome promises of
the possible. Wolfgang Sachs contends, 'development is much more than just a socio-economic endeavour; it is a
perception which models reality, a myth which comforts societies, and a fantasy which
unleashes passions' (1992:1). These models, myths, and passions are sustained by development's 'buzzwords'.
¶
¶
Writing from diverse locations, contributors to this special issue critically examine a ¶ selection ofthe words that constitute
today's development lexicon. Whereas those who contributed ¶ to Sachs' 1992 landmark publication The Development
Dictionary shared a project of dismantling ¶ the edifice of development, this collection is deliberately eclectic in its range of
voices, positions, ¶ and perspectives. Some tell tales of the trajectories that these words have travelled, as they have ¶ moved
from one domain of discourse to another; others describe scenes in which the ironies - ¶ absurdities, at times - of their usage
beg closer critical attention; others peel off the multiple ¶ guises that their words have assumed, and analyse the dissonant
agendas that they embrace. Our ¶ intention in bringing them together is to leave you, the reader, feeling less than equivocal
about ¶ taking for granted the words that frame the world-making projects of the development enterprise. ¶ The lexicon of
development ¶ For those involved in development practice, reflection on words and their meanings may seem ¶ irrelevant to
the real business of getting things done. Why, after all, should language matter to ¶ those who are doing development? As
long as those involved in development practice are familiar with the catch-words that need to be sprinkled liberally in
funding proposals and emblazoned on websites and promotional material, then surely there are more important things to ¶
be done than sit around mulling over questions of semantics? But language does matter for development .
Development's buzzwords are not only passwords to funding and influence; ¶ and they are more than the mere specialist
jargon that is characteristic of any profession. ¶ The word development itself, Gilbert Rist observes, has
become a 'modern shibboleth, an unavoidable password', which comes to be used 'to convey
the idea that tomorrow things will be better, or that more is necessarily better'. But, as he goes on
to note, the very taken-for-granted ¶ quality of 'development' - and the same might be said of many of the words that are
used in ¶ development discourse - leaves much of what is actually done in its name unquestioned.