This book is an edited volume that replies to Participation: The New Tyranny? by Bill Cooke and Uma Kothari. It is not as strong as the work it responds to, but does take the tyranny critique seriously and looks for ways to undertake a democratic, locally-designed development plan.
"The collection is divided into six sections, the first of which reviews how contemporary debates and thematic challenges surrounding debates over how participation might be (re)established as a transformative approach to development, while also offering a scepitcal note on the dangers of continuing with any participatory project. The second section seeks to rethink the concept of participation through theoretical engagement with space, political capabilities and citizenship. The next three sections analyze case studies of different actors and processes engaged in participation. Section III continues the theoretical debates over participation in relation to the links between participation and popular agency as embedded practice, and focuses on the complexities of 'indigenous' decision-making. Part IV focuses on civil society and the local state and the synergies and conflicts between them while Part V examines participatory initiatives by international development donors. The final section comprises short reflections by key commenters based both on a selection of chapters from the collection and wider debates on participation.
As will become clear, an underlying theme in all the contributions is that 'politics matters' within international development. We believe, and most contributors confirm, that understanding the ways in which participation relates to existing power structures and political systems provides the basis for moving towards a more transformatory approach to development; one which is rooted in the exercise of broadly defined citizenship." (4-5)
Cause this book didn't particularly flip my skirt, I'm going to provide the bibliographic data for the essays, and then follow with an annotation of the ones I liked.
Section 1: From tyranny to transformation?
Hickey, Sam and Giles Mohan. "Towards participation as transformation: critical themes and challenges."
Gaventa, John. "Towards participatory governance: assessing the transformative possibilities."
Cooke, Bill. "Rules of thumb for participatory change agents."
Section 2: Rethinking participation
Mohan, Giles and Sam Hickey. "Relocating participation within a radical politics of development: critical modernism and citizenship."
Cornwall, Andrea. "Spaces for transformation? reflections on issues of power and difference in participation in development."
Williams, Glyn. "Towards a repoliticization of participatory development: political capabilities and spaces of empowerment."
Section 3: Participation as popular agency: reconnecting with underlying processes of development.
Vincent, Susan. "Participation, resistance and problems with the 'local' in Peru: towards a new political contract?"
Masaki, Katsuhiko. "The 'transformative' unfolding of 'tyrannical' participation: the corvee tradition and ongoing local politics in Western Nepal."
Henry, Leroi. "Morality, citizenship and participatory development in an indigenous development association: the case of the GPSDO and the Sebat Bet Gurage of Ethopia."
Section Four: Realizing transformative participation in practice: state and civil responses.
Hickey, Sam and Giles Mohan. "Relocating participation within a radical politics of development: insights from political action and practice."
Mitlin, Diana. "Securing voice and transforming practice in local government: the role of federating in grassroots development."
Florisbello, Glauco Regis and Irene Guijt. "Participatory municipal development plans in Brazil: divergent partners constructing common futures."
Kelly, Ute. "Confrontations with power: moving beyond 'the tyranny of safety' in participation."
Waddington, Mark and Giles Mohan. "Failing forward: going beyond PRA and imposed forms of participation."
Section 5: Donors and participation: caught between tyranny and transformation.
Brown, David. "Participation in poverty reduction strategies: democracy strengthened or democracy undermined?"
Holland, Jeremy, Mary Ann Brocklesby, and Charles Abugre. "Beyond the technical fix? participation in donor approaches to rights-based development."
Section 6: Broader perspectives on 'from tyranny to transformation'
Cleaver, Francis. "The social embeddedness of agency and decision-making."
Bebbington, Anthony. "Theorizing participation and institutional change: ethnography and political economy."
So without question, my favorite article in this collection is Bill Cooke's. He remains deeply opposed to "participatory" methods, and sets out rules that do more to highlight the deficiencies of the method than they do to provide a roadmap for effective engagments (they entail, for instance, that international workers work at local rates, which, assuming the international workers are going to return to their country of origin is a recipe that guarantees noone would ever become a participatory developer, as doing so would be a recipe for pauperization later in life. But his first rule is classic, and is reproduced here in it's entirety (emphasis added by me).
"Rule I: Don't work for the World Bank.
Instrumentally, credible change agents are prinicipled change agents; and principled change agents know who they won't work for, and why. If not the Bank, then who? According to Schein, inventor of the idea of process consultation: 'any time we help someone we are in effect allying ourselves with the goals and values they represent. We cannot later abdicate responsibility for the help we have provided if that turns out to have had bad effects on other groups (Schein 1978a:127).
What follows is to state the obvious. Greater impact on people's empowerment -- in terms of, say, their right to life through healthcare, water and education -- is made by decisions taken by the Bank and the IMF on debt repayment than can be made by an infinity of face-to-face participatory events which have no power over debt. And, bluntly, one of the reasons why that debt accumulated was through loans to corrupt and criminal regimes kept in power to sustain a particular world order. Loans were also made by private sector banks to private sector organizations in the Third World. When these creditors defaulted, Third World governments were forced to take the debts on. In an otherwise neo-liberalizing world, private sector debt is nationalized and its repayment extorted from individual, poor, taxpayers (e.g. Chossudovsky 1997).
It is participatory development's institutional groupthink (Cooke 2001) that requires the restatement of these basic facts so baldly. Organizations such as the Bretton Woods Project (2003- ) produce rigorously researched account of the Bank's dysfunctional behavior, and Griffiths (2003) produces an insider accounts of its ideological infliction of famine; and the opposition of worldwide anti-globalization movements is widely reported. Yet the participation establishment seems to have no qualms (to put it mildly) and, at least in some cases, has supported the Bank's appropriation of participatory discourse and methods. More basic facts: the World Bank is an organization that sees more neo-liberalism as the remedy for the problems it has visited on the world's poor; and, to the point here, it uses participatory methodolgies and practitioners to enforce that agenda (see Brown, this volume). Those participatory practitioners are taking an ideological stance. And, to be fair, there are some practitioners who know this, and will not work for or with Bank.
Otherwise, though, why do practitioners who might be assumed to be liberal rather than neo-liberal continue to work for the Bank material interest aside (see Rule V)? Publicly espoused justifications are often along the lines that it is possible to make a difference through a specific Bank project, or more generally that there is the space for alternatives within the Bank, which is not a homogenous monolith.
A retort to the first of these is that given all the participatory interventions which might be made, why is so much effort dedicated to the Bank's. Moreover, it is breathtaking vanity for participatory practitioners to suggest that they can succeed in changing the Bank from within when others better qualified have not been able to do so, from Nobel prize-winning Joseph Stiglitz through to World Development Report author (or not) Ravi Kanbur (Pincus and Winters 2002). Perhaps, rather, participatory practitioners are allowed through the door precisely because there is no danger of them challenging neo-liberal hegemony, or, worse, because they sustain it.
The point about the Bank not being a monolith works the other way. There is enough in political and organizational theories to show that institutions present different faces to different people the better to incorporate them, to legitimize themselves in society, and to buy critics off (of which more in Rule II). Participatory development also does a more directly neo-liberalizing job for the Bank. A study by the World Development Movement (Marshall and Woodroffe 2001) of country Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) found that, pro-poor rhetoric aside, the actual changes they proposed, in every country, were neo-liberal prescriptions identical with both previously discredited Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs), and with one another. This monolithic homogeneity would be logically surprising if the clams for participation in their production held true, suggesting that participating poor people from countries as diverse as Ghana, Bolivia and Cambodia all chose privitization and user fees, but not redistribution, as the solution to their problems.
Perhaps participator practitioners are particularly prone to this form of vanity because of what controlling participatory processes does to their self-image. Studies of some of the earliest versions of organized participatory face-to-face groups, known as T(raining)-groups, from the 1950s onwards have shown how they generate euphoria in both participants and facilitates, so the latter sense they have in their gift some magical power capable of engendering profound personal transformation (Kleiner 1996). Addition to the sense of well-being that they are apparently able to create can lead practitioners to commit to the cause which permits their participatory practice, oblivious to what that cause it, its consequences, or to the fact that what they are doing is simply a matter of social-psychological technique." (43-45)
In Rule 2 "Remember: co-option, co-option, co-option", Cooke writes:
"Sadly, there is yet a third form of co-optation -- of radical participation by the orthodoxy (symbolized by even the World Bank [2003b] claiming to host an 'Empowerment Community of Practice') - which is perhaps the most problematic for the purposes of this book. In the work of participatory theoriest -- Friere (1972) par excellence -- for whom participation is about changing consciousness, emancipation rather than just empowerment has been around for some time. However, there is a longstanding analysis in organization studies which identifies a dynamic in which such radical ideas are co-opted, reduced to technique, and applied for non-emancipatory end. Ironically, the metaphorical term used to describe this process is 'colonization' (Prasad 2003). A specific example is the work of Saul Alinsky (Cooke 1998). Alinsky's model of participatory grassroots organizing, discussed in Reveille for Radicals (1948), was part of a programme which included bringing the means of production into the common ownership, and critiqued the US labour movement for racist collusion with monopoly capital. But his method (along with that of others) was appropriated, neutralized and transformed by Lippitt et al. (1958), in their standard work which produced a generic model of change interventions and, in passing, brought the term 'change agent' to prominence." (46-47)
This essay dovetails nicely with Duffield's "Global Governance and the New Wars", which suggests that development continually reinvents itself in order to obscure the underlying dynamics of powerful states maintaining their hegemony. Thus, "failure" is not a structural dynamic, but is just a problem of method.
To their credit, most of the authors in this volume "perceive inequality as a form of asymmetric conflict: a conflict that is located at the structural rather than the interpersonal level, and a conflict in which power is unevenly distributed." (213) And, given that political recognition, propose various radical schemes to challenge those power arrangments and build a more empowered citizen. However, as Cooke observes, the method of doing that called "participation" has been co-opted already, and perhaps the only way to prevent disempowering institutions from using it as cover is to begin the cycle anew and develop a new vocabulary for collective consciousness raising.
Showing posts with label participation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label participation. Show all posts
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Cooke, Bill and Uma Kothari, eds. 2001. Participation: The New Tyranny? Zed Books: London.
Participatory development is the new thing in humanitarian and development circles. The idea is that previous development paradigms failed because they imposed solutions on communities that were inappropriate in the local context. To ameliorate that problem, aid workers, World Bank employees, etc, would go to the affected communities and engage in group discussions about the proposed projects and come up with more effective aid interventions. This volume critiques that approach by arguing that participatory methods merely apply a patina of local involvement to what remains an externally driven, top-down planning process.
(Also, for this annotation, I'm just going to crib the Introductory summary of the essays contained in the volume, cause I lack the time/ambition to look at them all again right now.)
Cooke, Bill and Uma Kothari. "The Case for Participation as Tyranny."
"Taken together, these themes (there are other, which readers may identify) point to what for us is the fundamental concern. It becomes clear from a reading of the chapters in this book that the proponents of participatory development have generally been naive about the complexities of power and power relations. This is the case not only 'on the ground' between 'facilitators' and 'participants', between 'participants' and more widely between 'donors' and 'beneficiaries', but also historically and discursively in the construction of what constitutes knowledge and social norms. While analyses of power in participation are not new, what is evident here is that there are multiple and diverse ways in which this power is expressed; furthermore, articulations of power are very often less visible, being as they are embedded in social and cultural practices. Thus this book identifies a more nuanced set of understandings of the workings of power as being necessary, in order to uncover its varied and subtle manifestations in the very discourse of participation.
The genealogies and histories of development in general, and participatory practices in particular, that are found in some of these chapters further explicate how a misunderstanding of power underpins much of the participatory discourse. The identification of the (mis)interpretations of how and where power is expressed within participation compels us to reconsider the notion of empowerment, and the claims to empowerment made by many participatory practitioners. Since an understanding of the concept of 'empowerment' is based on particular realizations of its root concept, 'power', and since this, as some of the chapters in this book argue, has been simplified in the theory and practice of participation, the meanings ascribed to the condition of empowerment and the claims made for its attainment for those who have been marginalized must also be subjected to further scrutiny.
This confirms, for us, that we were right to discuss participation in terms of its tyrannical potential, remembering that tyranny is precisely about the illegitimate and/or unjust uses of power. The question we will not answer here, however, is whether this potential can be overcome. What we do suggest, however, is a starting point for those who might try to redeem it. This is to build a more sophisticated and genuinely reflexive understanding of power and its manifestations and dynamics. Written into this understanding must be a recognition that participatory development does not have a reified existence 'out there', but is constructed by a cadre of development professionals, be they academics, practitioners or policy-makers, whose ability to create or sustain this discourse is indicative of the power they possess. This must be accompanied by an acknowledgment that questions such as 'Whose reality counts?' (Chambers 1997), which suggest that there are contrasting versions of reality, mask the extent to which these development professionals, in their applications of the ideas of participatory development, are actually still engaged in the construction of a particular reality -- one that at root is amenable to, and justifies, their existence and intervention within it.
What we are calling for as a first step, therefore, is a genuine and rigorous reflexivity, one that acknowledges the processes and consequences of these constructions. This means going beyond the evident narrowness (verging on narcissism) of the existing self-acclaimed 'self-critical epistemological awareness' (Chambers 1997: 32) to draw on a deeper and more wide-ranging set of analyses than has hitherto been the case. This book has provided some of these analyses and, we hope, initiated this reflexivity. Ironically, though, authentic reflexivity requires a level of open-mindedness that accepts that participatory development may inevitably be tyrannical, and preparedness to abandon it if this is the case. Thus any meaningful attempt to save participatory development requires a sincere acceptance of the possibility that it should not be saved." (14-15)
Mosse, David. "'People's Knowledge', Participation and Patronage: Operations and Representations in Rural Development"
"David Mosse in Chapter 2 challenges the populist assumption that attention to 'local knowledge' through participatory learning will redefine the relationship between local communities and development organizations. Using project-based illustrations, he shows that 'local knowledge', far from determining planning processes and outcomes, is often structured by them. For example, what in one case was expressed as a 'local need' was actually shaped by local perceptions of what the agency in question could legitimately and realistically be expected to deliver. Indeed, 'participatory planning' may, more accurately, be view as the acquistion and manipulation of a new 'planning knowledge' rather than the incorporation of 'people's knowledge' by projects.
Mosse then shows how participatory ideals are often operationally constrained by institutional contexts that require formal and informal bureaucratic goals to be met. Participation nevertheless remains important as part of a projects as a 'system of representations'. As such, ideas of participation are oriented towards concerns that are external to project locations. There representations do not necessarily speak directly to local practice and provide little by way of guidance on project implementation, but they are important in negotiating relationships with donors, and more widely in underpinning positions withing development policy debates." (8)
Cleaver, Frances. "Institutions, Agency and the Limitations of Participatory Approaches to Development."
"In Chapter 3 Frances Cleaver also makes use of case studies, here in relation to water resource usage. The chapter begins by questioning 'the heroic claims made for development', and by presenting the case for understanding the role of social structure and of individual agency in shaping participation. Participatory development, Cleaver suggests, tends to conflate social structures with institutions, most commonly conceptualized as organizations, not least because such institutions apparently make social structures 'legible'. However, participatory development bureaucracies have preferences for institutional arrangements that may not correspond with those of 'participants'. Problems identified include and espousal of the importance of informal institutions while actual concentration is on the formal; the varying forms of participation that different institutional types require; the questionable assumptions about 'community' upon which participatory institution-building is based; and the tendency towards foundationalism about local communities.
The chapter goes on to consider the inadequacy of participatory approaches' models of individual agency and the links between these and social structures. The argument presented here is that understandings of the motivations of individuals to participate, or not, are vague, and simplistic assumptions are made about the rationality inherent in participating, and the irresponsibility of not doing so. Furthermore, participatory approaches fail to recognize how different, changing and multiple identities of individuals impact upon their choices about whether and how to participate, and overlook the potential links between inclusion in participatory processes and subordination." (8-9)
Hildyard, Nicholas, Pandurang Hedge, Paul Wolvekamp, and Somasekhare Reddy. "Pluralism, Participation and Power: Joint Forest Management in India."
Chapter 4, by [all those people above], examines, in light of the increasing fashion for participatory forest management, conflicts over the meanings of 'participation' and 'forests'. It begins by suggesting that the failure by donors to implement policies on participation is institutionally deep-seated and structural, and that through participatory is institutionally deep-seated and structural, and that through participatory development grassroots organizations are in danger of becoming 'the human software through which investments cn be made with least local opposition'. It then shows that while participatory Joint Forest Management project in which the chapter authors were involved as local activists of Northern-based solidarity groups. The authors conclude by arguing that unless participatory processes take into account the relative bargaining power of so-called stakeholders they are in danger of merely providing opportunities for the more powerful." (9)
Francis, Paul. "Participatory Development at the World Bank: the Primacy of Process."
"In Chapter 5 Paul Francis begins by summarizing the three main approaches to participation employed by the World Bank -- Beneficiary Assessment, Social Analysis, and PRA -- before going on to focus on the last of these. Initially the chapter sets out PRA's methodological and epistemological bases before questioning the relationship between 'the community' and 'the professional', suggesting inter alia that the importance of charismatic specialists, who claim a moral position combined with an inner-directedness and the symbolism of 'reversal', recalls the role of the shaman. Francis suggests that PRA is rite of communion, the performance of which 'enacts an exorcism, of sorts, of the phantoms of "conventional" development practice', and analyses the World Bank Participation Sourcebook as 'part self-improvement manual and part mythical text. At the same time, though, the reductionist simplifications of PRA techniques are noted. Next Francis considers the uptake of participatory approaches at the Bank within the context of the new emphasis on 'the social' in terms of process, consultation and partnership. He argues that underlying structural determinants of well-being are given little attention and that this is reinforced by the individualist nature of PRA, and the absence of any real alternative vision of development leaves it vulnerable to opportunism and co-option." (10)
Hailey, John. "Beyond the Formulaic: Process and Practice in South Asian NGOs."
"In Chapter 6 John Hailey draws on a range of ideas to question the formulaic approaches to participatory decision-making promoted and even imposed by donors and other development actors. These include Hoftstede's work on cross-cultural management, a Foucaldian analysis of power and the discourse of participation, and a recognition of the Cold War uses of community participation. Hailey begins by reviewing recent research into the development and growth of successful South Asian NGOs that suggested that NGO success resulted from the understandings of, and responses to, the needs of the local communities where they worked. However, research showed that this closeness to communities arose not from the application of the well-known formulaic approaches to participation -- indeed, they were conspicuous by their absence. Rather, as case examples in the chapter illustrate, success was achieved by a long-term effort by NGO leaders to build close personal relations with individuals and groups in the communities with which they worked, and with NGO staff. The chapter then offers three explanations for the absence of formulaic approaches to participation. The first is that they have real operational limitations, the second is that they are culturally inappropriate, and the third is that their history and the reality of the practice indicate that they might (legitimately) be seen as a means of imposing external control." (10)
Cooke, Bill. "The Social Psychological Limits of Participation?"
In Chapter 7, Bill Cooke uses four concepts from social psychology (risky shift, the Abilene paradox, groupthink, and coercive persuasion) to demonstrate how individuals' thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by the presence -- real, imagined or implied -- of others. These concepts suggest that problems can arise as a consequence of the face-to-face interactions that are a defining feature of participatory development. Taken together the four concepts suggest that participatory process can lead people to take, first, collective decisions that are more risky than those they would have taken individually (i.e. risky shift). Second, they can lead to people taking a decision that participants have second-guessed is what everyone else wants, when the opposite is the case (the Abilene paradox). Third, particular dynamics, the symptoms of which include a belief in the inherent morality of what is being done, self-censorship, and the existence of 'mindguards', can lead to evidently wrong decisions, which can be harmful to 'outgroup' members (groupthink). Fourth, the manipulation of group processes can lead to malign changes in ideological beliefs, or consciousness (coercive persuasion). All four challenge participatory development's claims for effectiveness and empowerment, and suggest a disciplinary bias that permits the use of technology on the world's poor without the safeguards the rich would expect." (10-11)
Taylor, Harry. "Insights into Participation from Critical Management and Labour Process Perspectives."
"In Chapter 8 Harry Taylor challenges Robert Chambers' positive spin on the parallels between participatory development and participatory management. Taylor argues that participation in both cases is part of a wider attempt to influence power relations between elite groups and the less powerful -- be they individual project beneficiaries or the employees of organizations in the developing world. He makes his case by first drawing parallels between project beneficiaries and employees within organizations in terms of their relative dependancy and powerlessness. Moving on to consider arguments for participation from mainstream management, he suggests that even on its own terms doubts about its feasibility and desirability exist. From a more critical management perspective he then draw on Foucaldian and labour process critiques, which suggest that participation is always constrained, and hides and at the same time perpetuates certain sets of power relations. Taylore rounds off his chapter by suggesting why there is disillusionment with participation in both development and management arenas, and by speculating on the prospects for 'genuine' participation." (11)
Kothari, Uma. "Power, Knowledge and Social Control in Participatory Development."
"In Chapter 9 Uma Kothari challenges the truth claims made be participatory development. Like Harry Taylor and John Hailey she proposes a Foucauldian approach to the understanding of power, as something which circulates, rather than as something divided between those who have it and those who do not. This latter dichotomous approach typifies participatory development, and leads to practices based in conventional stratifications of power. These serve both to conceal daily oppressions in people's lives that run through every aspect of everyday life and to ensure that participants remain the subject of development surveillance. Although PRA seeks to reveal the realities of everyday life, paradoxically its public nature means that the more participatory it is, the more the power structure of the local community will be masked. The chapter concludes by drawing on the work of Goffman to consider how the ritual practices of PRA actually serve to subvert it, by producing front stage performances that conceal both the 'real' reality of the back stage, and come to be taken for that reality." (11-12)
Mohan, Giles. "Beyond Participation: Strategies for Deeper Empowerment."
"In Chapter 10 Giles Mohan has two major aims. The first is to critique participatory practices, in particular the ways in which local knowledge is supposedly produced as a reversal of 'top-down' approaches. This critique is made using the ideas associated with post-colonial studies and argues that a subtle Eurocentrism pervade the interventions of non-local development workers. By supposedly focusing on the personal and the local as the sites of empowerment and knowledge, participatory approaches minimize the importance of the other places where power and knowledge are located, for example with 'us' in the Western development community and with the state. The chapter then addresses its second aim, which is to explore the possibility of moving beyond these pitfalls, weaving theoretical observations with a discussion of the work of Village Aid. Mohan calls for a radicalized hybridity, beyond bounded notions of self/other and insider/outsider; and a scaling up of local interventions, linking them to the complex processes of democratization, anti-imperialism and feminism." (12)
Henkel, Heiko and Roderick Stirrat. "Participation as Spiritual Duty; Empowerment as Secular Subjection."
"Heiko Henkel and Roderick Stirrat's Chapter 11 takes an anthropological approach. They are concerned with the practices, ideas and cosmologies of those who plan and practise 'development projects'. They begin by looking at genealogies of participation, which they identify as being primarily religious, noting that participation was a moral imperative of the Reformation, and tracing this imperative through nineteenth-century British non-conformism to the founding of British development NGOs. The chapter, like Chapter 5, then considers participation as a religious experience, but sees different parallels, particularly in the reversal of binary oppositions that characterize the work of both Robert Chambers and Christian traditions of 'the world turned upside down'. Henkel and Stirrat go on to address the notion of 'empowerment', which they claim may not be as liberating as the new orthodoxy suggests. The question that should be asked, they argue, is not how much people are empowered, but for what. Their own answer to this question is that participatory approaches shape individual identities, 'empowering' participants 'to take part in the modern sector of developing societies'. This empowerment is therefore tantamount, in Foucauldian terms, to subjection." (12-13)
I really need to learn to type faster ...
(Also, for this annotation, I'm just going to crib the Introductory summary of the essays contained in the volume, cause I lack the time/ambition to look at them all again right now.)
Cooke, Bill and Uma Kothari. "The Case for Participation as Tyranny."
"Taken together, these themes (there are other, which readers may identify) point to what for us is the fundamental concern. It becomes clear from a reading of the chapters in this book that the proponents of participatory development have generally been naive about the complexities of power and power relations. This is the case not only 'on the ground' between 'facilitators' and 'participants', between 'participants' and more widely between 'donors' and 'beneficiaries', but also historically and discursively in the construction of what constitutes knowledge and social norms. While analyses of power in participation are not new, what is evident here is that there are multiple and diverse ways in which this power is expressed; furthermore, articulations of power are very often less visible, being as they are embedded in social and cultural practices. Thus this book identifies a more nuanced set of understandings of the workings of power as being necessary, in order to uncover its varied and subtle manifestations in the very discourse of participation.
The genealogies and histories of development in general, and participatory practices in particular, that are found in some of these chapters further explicate how a misunderstanding of power underpins much of the participatory discourse. The identification of the (mis)interpretations of how and where power is expressed within participation compels us to reconsider the notion of empowerment, and the claims to empowerment made by many participatory practitioners. Since an understanding of the concept of 'empowerment' is based on particular realizations of its root concept, 'power', and since this, as some of the chapters in this book argue, has been simplified in the theory and practice of participation, the meanings ascribed to the condition of empowerment and the claims made for its attainment for those who have been marginalized must also be subjected to further scrutiny.
This confirms, for us, that we were right to discuss participation in terms of its tyrannical potential, remembering that tyranny is precisely about the illegitimate and/or unjust uses of power. The question we will not answer here, however, is whether this potential can be overcome. What we do suggest, however, is a starting point for those who might try to redeem it. This is to build a more sophisticated and genuinely reflexive understanding of power and its manifestations and dynamics. Written into this understanding must be a recognition that participatory development does not have a reified existence 'out there', but is constructed by a cadre of development professionals, be they academics, practitioners or policy-makers, whose ability to create or sustain this discourse is indicative of the power they possess. This must be accompanied by an acknowledgment that questions such as 'Whose reality counts?' (Chambers 1997), which suggest that there are contrasting versions of reality, mask the extent to which these development professionals, in their applications of the ideas of participatory development, are actually still engaged in the construction of a particular reality -- one that at root is amenable to, and justifies, their existence and intervention within it.
What we are calling for as a first step, therefore, is a genuine and rigorous reflexivity, one that acknowledges the processes and consequences of these constructions. This means going beyond the evident narrowness (verging on narcissism) of the existing self-acclaimed 'self-critical epistemological awareness' (Chambers 1997: 32) to draw on a deeper and more wide-ranging set of analyses than has hitherto been the case. This book has provided some of these analyses and, we hope, initiated this reflexivity. Ironically, though, authentic reflexivity requires a level of open-mindedness that accepts that participatory development may inevitably be tyrannical, and preparedness to abandon it if this is the case. Thus any meaningful attempt to save participatory development requires a sincere acceptance of the possibility that it should not be saved." (14-15)
Mosse, David. "'People's Knowledge', Participation and Patronage: Operations and Representations in Rural Development"
"David Mosse in Chapter 2 challenges the populist assumption that attention to 'local knowledge' through participatory learning will redefine the relationship between local communities and development organizations. Using project-based illustrations, he shows that 'local knowledge', far from determining planning processes and outcomes, is often structured by them. For example, what in one case was expressed as a 'local need' was actually shaped by local perceptions of what the agency in question could legitimately and realistically be expected to deliver. Indeed, 'participatory planning' may, more accurately, be view as the acquistion and manipulation of a new 'planning knowledge' rather than the incorporation of 'people's knowledge' by projects.
Mosse then shows how participatory ideals are often operationally constrained by institutional contexts that require formal and informal bureaucratic goals to be met. Participation nevertheless remains important as part of a projects as a 'system of representations'. As such, ideas of participation are oriented towards concerns that are external to project locations. There representations do not necessarily speak directly to local practice and provide little by way of guidance on project implementation, but they are important in negotiating relationships with donors, and more widely in underpinning positions withing development policy debates." (8)
Cleaver, Frances. "Institutions, Agency and the Limitations of Participatory Approaches to Development."
"In Chapter 3 Frances Cleaver also makes use of case studies, here in relation to water resource usage. The chapter begins by questioning 'the heroic claims made for development', and by presenting the case for understanding the role of social structure and of individual agency in shaping participation. Participatory development, Cleaver suggests, tends to conflate social structures with institutions, most commonly conceptualized as organizations, not least because such institutions apparently make social structures 'legible'. However, participatory development bureaucracies have preferences for institutional arrangements that may not correspond with those of 'participants'. Problems identified include and espousal of the importance of informal institutions while actual concentration is on the formal; the varying forms of participation that different institutional types require; the questionable assumptions about 'community' upon which participatory institution-building is based; and the tendency towards foundationalism about local communities.
The chapter goes on to consider the inadequacy of participatory approaches' models of individual agency and the links between these and social structures. The argument presented here is that understandings of the motivations of individuals to participate, or not, are vague, and simplistic assumptions are made about the rationality inherent in participating, and the irresponsibility of not doing so. Furthermore, participatory approaches fail to recognize how different, changing and multiple identities of individuals impact upon their choices about whether and how to participate, and overlook the potential links between inclusion in participatory processes and subordination." (8-9)
Hildyard, Nicholas, Pandurang Hedge, Paul Wolvekamp, and Somasekhare Reddy. "Pluralism, Participation and Power: Joint Forest Management in India."
Chapter 4, by [all those people above], examines, in light of the increasing fashion for participatory forest management, conflicts over the meanings of 'participation' and 'forests'. It begins by suggesting that the failure by donors to implement policies on participation is institutionally deep-seated and structural, and that through participatory is institutionally deep-seated and structural, and that through participatory development grassroots organizations are in danger of becoming 'the human software through which investments cn be made with least local opposition'. It then shows that while participatory Joint Forest Management project in which the chapter authors were involved as local activists of Northern-based solidarity groups. The authors conclude by arguing that unless participatory processes take into account the relative bargaining power of so-called stakeholders they are in danger of merely providing opportunities for the more powerful." (9)
Francis, Paul. "Participatory Development at the World Bank: the Primacy of Process."
"In Chapter 5 Paul Francis begins by summarizing the three main approaches to participation employed by the World Bank -- Beneficiary Assessment, Social Analysis, and PRA -- before going on to focus on the last of these. Initially the chapter sets out PRA's methodological and epistemological bases before questioning the relationship between 'the community' and 'the professional', suggesting inter alia that the importance of charismatic specialists, who claim a moral position combined with an inner-directedness and the symbolism of 'reversal', recalls the role of the shaman. Francis suggests that PRA is rite of communion, the performance of which 'enacts an exorcism, of sorts, of the phantoms of "conventional" development practice', and analyses the World Bank Participation Sourcebook as 'part self-improvement manual and part mythical text. At the same time, though, the reductionist simplifications of PRA techniques are noted. Next Francis considers the uptake of participatory approaches at the Bank within the context of the new emphasis on 'the social' in terms of process, consultation and partnership. He argues that underlying structural determinants of well-being are given little attention and that this is reinforced by the individualist nature of PRA, and the absence of any real alternative vision of development leaves it vulnerable to opportunism and co-option." (10)
Hailey, John. "Beyond the Formulaic: Process and Practice in South Asian NGOs."
"In Chapter 6 John Hailey draws on a range of ideas to question the formulaic approaches to participatory decision-making promoted and even imposed by donors and other development actors. These include Hoftstede's work on cross-cultural management, a Foucaldian analysis of power and the discourse of participation, and a recognition of the Cold War uses of community participation. Hailey begins by reviewing recent research into the development and growth of successful South Asian NGOs that suggested that NGO success resulted from the understandings of, and responses to, the needs of the local communities where they worked. However, research showed that this closeness to communities arose not from the application of the well-known formulaic approaches to participation -- indeed, they were conspicuous by their absence. Rather, as case examples in the chapter illustrate, success was achieved by a long-term effort by NGO leaders to build close personal relations with individuals and groups in the communities with which they worked, and with NGO staff. The chapter then offers three explanations for the absence of formulaic approaches to participation. The first is that they have real operational limitations, the second is that they are culturally inappropriate, and the third is that their history and the reality of the practice indicate that they might (legitimately) be seen as a means of imposing external control." (10)
Cooke, Bill. "The Social Psychological Limits of Participation?"
In Chapter 7, Bill Cooke uses four concepts from social psychology (risky shift, the Abilene paradox, groupthink, and coercive persuasion) to demonstrate how individuals' thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by the presence -- real, imagined or implied -- of others. These concepts suggest that problems can arise as a consequence of the face-to-face interactions that are a defining feature of participatory development. Taken together the four concepts suggest that participatory process can lead people to take, first, collective decisions that are more risky than those they would have taken individually (i.e. risky shift). Second, they can lead to people taking a decision that participants have second-guessed is what everyone else wants, when the opposite is the case (the Abilene paradox). Third, particular dynamics, the symptoms of which include a belief in the inherent morality of what is being done, self-censorship, and the existence of 'mindguards', can lead to evidently wrong decisions, which can be harmful to 'outgroup' members (groupthink). Fourth, the manipulation of group processes can lead to malign changes in ideological beliefs, or consciousness (coercive persuasion). All four challenge participatory development's claims for effectiveness and empowerment, and suggest a disciplinary bias that permits the use of technology on the world's poor without the safeguards the rich would expect." (10-11)
Taylor, Harry. "Insights into Participation from Critical Management and Labour Process Perspectives."
"In Chapter 8 Harry Taylor challenges Robert Chambers' positive spin on the parallels between participatory development and participatory management. Taylor argues that participation in both cases is part of a wider attempt to influence power relations between elite groups and the less powerful -- be they individual project beneficiaries or the employees of organizations in the developing world. He makes his case by first drawing parallels between project beneficiaries and employees within organizations in terms of their relative dependancy and powerlessness. Moving on to consider arguments for participation from mainstream management, he suggests that even on its own terms doubts about its feasibility and desirability exist. From a more critical management perspective he then draw on Foucaldian and labour process critiques, which suggest that participation is always constrained, and hides and at the same time perpetuates certain sets of power relations. Taylore rounds off his chapter by suggesting why there is disillusionment with participation in both development and management arenas, and by speculating on the prospects for 'genuine' participation." (11)
Kothari, Uma. "Power, Knowledge and Social Control in Participatory Development."
"In Chapter 9 Uma Kothari challenges the truth claims made be participatory development. Like Harry Taylor and John Hailey she proposes a Foucauldian approach to the understanding of power, as something which circulates, rather than as something divided between those who have it and those who do not. This latter dichotomous approach typifies participatory development, and leads to practices based in conventional stratifications of power. These serve both to conceal daily oppressions in people's lives that run through every aspect of everyday life and to ensure that participants remain the subject of development surveillance. Although PRA seeks to reveal the realities of everyday life, paradoxically its public nature means that the more participatory it is, the more the power structure of the local community will be masked. The chapter concludes by drawing on the work of Goffman to consider how the ritual practices of PRA actually serve to subvert it, by producing front stage performances that conceal both the 'real' reality of the back stage, and come to be taken for that reality." (11-12)
Mohan, Giles. "Beyond Participation: Strategies for Deeper Empowerment."
"In Chapter 10 Giles Mohan has two major aims. The first is to critique participatory practices, in particular the ways in which local knowledge is supposedly produced as a reversal of 'top-down' approaches. This critique is made using the ideas associated with post-colonial studies and argues that a subtle Eurocentrism pervade the interventions of non-local development workers. By supposedly focusing on the personal and the local as the sites of empowerment and knowledge, participatory approaches minimize the importance of the other places where power and knowledge are located, for example with 'us' in the Western development community and with the state. The chapter then addresses its second aim, which is to explore the possibility of moving beyond these pitfalls, weaving theoretical observations with a discussion of the work of Village Aid. Mohan calls for a radicalized hybridity, beyond bounded notions of self/other and insider/outsider; and a scaling up of local interventions, linking them to the complex processes of democratization, anti-imperialism and feminism." (12)
Henkel, Heiko and Roderick Stirrat. "Participation as Spiritual Duty; Empowerment as Secular Subjection."
"Heiko Henkel and Roderick Stirrat's Chapter 11 takes an anthropological approach. They are concerned with the practices, ideas and cosmologies of those who plan and practise 'development projects'. They begin by looking at genealogies of participation, which they identify as being primarily religious, noting that participation was a moral imperative of the Reformation, and tracing this imperative through nineteenth-century British non-conformism to the founding of British development NGOs. The chapter, like Chapter 5, then considers participation as a religious experience, but sees different parallels, particularly in the reversal of binary oppositions that characterize the work of both Robert Chambers and Christian traditions of 'the world turned upside down'. Henkel and Stirrat go on to address the notion of 'empowerment', which they claim may not be as liberating as the new orthodoxy suggests. The question that should be asked, they argue, is not how much people are empowered, but for what. Their own answer to this question is that participatory approaches shape individual identities, 'empowering' participants 'to take part in the modern sector of developing societies'. This empowerment is therefore tantamount, in Foucauldian terms, to subjection." (12-13)
I really need to learn to type faster ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)