|
|
Mary B. Anderson
People -- as individuals -- differ, and peoples -- as groups and societies -- differ. Those of us who work within the framework of broad social movements, including the area(s) of international social and economic development, must acknowledge that such differences exist, even as we seek to apply encompassing solutions to large and comprehensive problems.
Development theory and practice of the 1950s and 1960s generally assumed that poverty was more or less homogeneous and that effective poverty alleviation efforts would, in a reasonable period of time, spread sufficiently to include most people. Experience showed these assumptions to be mistaken. Increasingly in the last thirty years, therefore, development analysts, policy-makers, and practitioners (very often responding to evidence brought forward by groups who found themselves excluded through development efforts), have identified categorisations of people who are `left out' of generalised development processes and who, therefore, require special programming attention. Specifically, we have learned through practical experience, and through analysis of this experience, that certain groups -- for example, women, the elderly, children, and others who are marginalised by their societies because of race, ethnicity, religion, or language -- very often do not participate in or benefit from development programmes that are generally applied, even when these programmes are recognised as `successful' in meeting their stated objectives. We have learned that awareness of the intrinsic socio-political structures that determine economic and social roles in any society is an essential ingredient of effective development programming.
The papers in this collection deal with a variety of categories of people and analyse the role assignments, both natural and socially-constructed, that make their circumstances of special concern for development practitioners. They raise and examine central issues of cultural blindness on the part of `outsider' aid providers who fail to recognise the realities of `insider' aid recipients. And they propose helpful and important shifts in thinking and programming that are required if development assistance is to serve all of the people it is intended to serve. The advantages and fundamental necessity of recognising differences and diversity are amply demonstrated through these articles.
In this Introduction, however, I shall take a somewhat different approach. I shall argue that the current emphases in international development assistance on recognising differences and appreciating diversity have both positive and negative impacts. In Section 1, I begin by examining the gains in development programming that are realised from recognising differences. In Section 2, I turn to the corresponding examination of disadvantages that have arisen both for programming and for outcomes when development practitioners misapply the methodologies that highlight difference. In Section 3, I pull the two together and discuss the importance of programming on the basis of differences -- but of doing so in ways that unite, rather than distinguish, people's interests and that advocate shared societal progress, rather than only special (albeit justified) sub-group empowerment. I conclude that those of us who work internationally must find a way to maintain a balance between appreciation of difference and affirmation of sameness, between programming according to special circumstances and programming for commonality.
The `good' of recognising differences and appreciating diversity
Recognition of differences
As noted above, early development assistance efforts failed to take account of differences within communities and, thereby, failed both to integrate and benefit all parts of society. The result of this failure was that some people gained from international assistance, while others were systematically excluded and disadvantaged. Foremost among groups that were excluded were women. In country after country, through project after project, the evidence mounted during the 1970s and 1980s that development assistance benefitted male members of societies at the expense of female members of societies. Men gained access to technologies, while women did not; boys entered and completed schooling at rates that far exceeded those of girls; cash crops -- largely in the domain of male farmers -- were encouraged at the expense of food crops, which were the responsibility of women. Furthermore, evidence also emerged that the distribution of the gains realised through development assistance were not shared equally within families and households. Male family members were often fed before their mothers, wives, daughters, and sisters; when family resources were scarce, parents chose to take sons to the clinic when they were ill, but waited, sometimes too long, to see if their daughters would get well without medical assistance; men who earned extra cash through wage labour or the sale of cash crops bought `luxury' items such as radios and bicycles, while women, whose income sources were shrinking, remained responsible for household food, health, and education and, as they were pressured to meet increasing family needs with fewer resources, favoured sons over daughters, thereby reinforcing the cycle of advantage and disadvantage.
The importance of the recognition of these unintended but systematic consequences of economic change, often brought on and encouraged by external aid, cannot be overemphasised. So long as women, and their roles as producers and distributors in the economic sphere, were `invisible' to aid planners, the damaging impacts of assistance on them -- and, hence, on their families -- continued. Many development projects failed because their designers and implementers did not recognise the relevance of gender analysis; as a result, scarce development resources have not produced the broad social and economic benefits that were intended. Attention to women and development, and the introduction of and refinements to Gender Analysis, have made a contribution to development theory and practice that should no longer be questioned by anyone with development experience.
As experience in analysing women's roles and circumstances grew, an appreciation of the importance of other differences also emerged. Development analysts and practitioners found that the assumption of homogeneity in any beneficiary population was a mistake which led to ineffective programming. In addition to acknowledging the differences of women's and men's roles and status, we found it useful to `disaggregate' populations according to urban and rural contexts, by age groupings, and, often, according to sub-population groups defined by language, ethnicity, clan, religion, or race.
It is important to note that our motivation for identifying such groups was born, primarily, from negative experiences. We were alerted to the importance of differences, because we observed that programmes planned without attention to them did not reach everyone. The categories of people whom we identified were, in general, seen to be `marginalised' or `vulnerable'. We shall come back to this in Section 2 below.
The adoption of disaggregation methodologies resulted in several distinct benefits in development programming.
First, these methodologies overcame the exceedingly important problem of `invisibility'. That is, they alerted development practitioners to the fact that difference does exist, and it led them to analyse both why it exists and how its existence interacts with the implementation of development activities. Both the recognition of difference and the ensuing understanding of its place and dynamic within societies were essential elements of understanding the context where any effort was to be initiated.
Second, knowing that some groups were excluded from automatic inclusion in benefits allowed development assistance to be directed and honed, so that it reached those groups whose special needs were identified or who would, otherwise, have been left out.
Third, understanding how exclusion of some groups occurs allowed development practitioners to develop more intelligent and accurate strategies for overcoming disadvantage through development assistance. If disadvantage were `natural' -- that is, the inevitable result of innate characteristics of a certain group -- then programmes might simply be developed to meet the needs of such groups as an act of charity. However, recognition that the systems which marginalise people according to a `natural' characteristic such as sex, age, or race, are socially constructed meant that one could devise strategies for altering and reconstructing systems to end marginalisation.
Finally, recognition of difference and the systems that reinforce it allowed development practitioners to set priorities among competing demands for scarce resources. From observing how existing systems lock certain people into disadvantaged positions, they could set priorities among various programme options in order to focus effort and resources on strategies that would most effectively address these systems and enable people to break out of the traps of impoverishment.
These advantages, gained through the recognition of difference, and its systemic creation and re-creation, are great. Development efforts (both international and indigenous) are remarkably improved when they apply the methodologies for disaggregation that have been developed in the past two decades.
Appreciation of diversity
Even as the development assistance community was learning to recognise and to programme in ways that incorporated differences, it was also moving towards an overdue and equally important appreciation of diversity. (The articles in this collection attest to both the importance and momentum of this movement.)
Again, in the 1950s and 1960s, international development assistance provided by countries of the North to countries of the South generally assumed a single development model, based on European and North American experience in the Industrial Revolution. And, again, evidence of failed development efforts in many places revealed the inappropriateness of this assumption. Development practitioners came to see and appreciate the fact that cultures differ and that models of development must take account of diversity if they are to succeed.
Socio-cultural diversity -- the rich variety of ways that people and peoples assemble their systems of belief and values, of working and surviving, and of living in relationships with others -- has thus assumed a central place in the thinking and planning of development workers. The appreciation of diversity forces abandonment of formulaic development approaches. Local contextual realities assume priority in the planning of development strategies and programmes.
Distinct advantages are also realised in development programming when diversity is recognised and appreciated.
The first advantage, again, is awareness. Past (and present!) failures of development programming often reflect a misfit between expectations and values imported from one context and the realities of the context where they were applied. To see and to appreciate as valid the existing realities and capacities of people whom development efforts are intended to assist is essential for accurate planning and programming.
Second, when providers of development assistance appreciate local realities and directly incorporate these into plans for developmental change, this ensures that local people, those actually doing the work of their own development, assume responsibility and ownership of their developmental directions and processes. This is essential for what is now referred to as `sustainability'.
Third, and probably most important, when development practitioners (especially those who act as `experts') truly appreciate socio-cultural diversity, they undertake their work (whether it is a long-term engagement or a short-term consultancy) on the basis of genuine respect for the people with whom they work. There is strong evidence that such respect of the aid provider for the culture and capacities of the people is a major, if not the primary, determinant of whether people are motivated to engage in the activity of development and, thus, of whether the aid actually achieves its intended outcomes.
Clearly, the case is strong indeed that effective development programming must be based on a recognition of differences and an appreciation of diversity. Much good comes from both. Unfortunately, experience also shows that a misapplied emphasis on disaggregating population groups and on appreciating cultural diversity in order to focus programming efforts may have negative consequences, as well as positive ones.
Possible negative consequences of programming based on differences and diversity
Recognition of differences
As we noted above, attention to differences was initially motivated by recognition that certain groups were regularly disadvantaged by mainstream development. Thus, disaggregation methodologies are directed primarily towards identifying problem areas. That is, disaggregation is used to identify `vulnerable' or `marginalised' groups. What often occurs, then, is that development initiatives are undertaken only on the basis of needs and deprivations, and fail either to recognise or to build on the capacities of the groups to whom the aid is offered. The situation of women provides an example. As it has become commonplace to recognise that women are marginalised from economic and political power and that they are, thus, more vulnerable to poverty and crises than men, it has also become commonplace to assume that femaleness automatically equates with `vulnerability'. While women are, indeed, more vulnerable to marginalisation and all of its attendant disadvantages than men, they also have immense strengths. They produce, they manage, they nurture, they maintain households and communities in the midst of hardship, and so on. While it is neither necessary nor inevitable that giving attention to differences and vulnerabilities will also result in ignoring capacities, experience shows that, too often, this does occur.
Second, among development agencies that recognise the importance of identifying differences as a way of focusing their programming there is a tendency to perceive and treat all vulnerable groups in the same way. We find, for example, repeated references to `women and children', as if they comprise one group and as if their circumstances are the same. Of course it is true that women's concerns include, and hence overlap with, those of children. However, while children (at least very young ones) are dependent entirely on others in order to survive, women are not. Putting women and children into one programming category obscures, again, the capacities of women, infantilises them, and results in poor programming. It would be similarly wrong to aggregate different minority groups, or people in other categories of disadvantage, without careful analysis.
Third, the categorisation of people may obscure important differences within a categorised group. To use the example of women again, all women are not the same. In some situations, the fact that women are rich or poor, urban or rural, educated or not may be a more important determinant of their circumstances -- and, thus, of appropriate programme activities to support their development -- than the fact that they are women per se.
Fourth, the reliance on categories of people as a way of focusing activities has led some development agencies to define their programmes as if the group with whom they are working is in a static and fixed position over time, rather than involved in dynamic and changing roles and relationships. For example, if an agency is committed to working with `the poorest of the poor' and learns through gender analysis that women fall into this group, agency staff may (and have been seen to) fail to recognise changes that occur in women's circumstances. If programming were effective, women should move out of the category of `poorest' and the agency should shift its focus to another group. Very often, designation of certain groups as the target of effort at one time will become inappropriate later but, because of the fixed categorisation of peoples, a development effort may continue to focus -- wrongly -- on the first-designated group.
Fifth, to call attention to disadvantage through attention to difference can, sometimes, result in misdirected programming. For example, while women may be marginalised from employment in a certain context, the most appropriate way to improve their access to work may be to focus not on the women themselves, but on some other aspect of the employment picture, such as legislation or transport or company incentives. Very often when designating a particular disadvantaged group as needing change, development practitioners focus their efforts only on that group, rather than on other (possibly advantaged) groups who may hold the key to the required change.
It should be clear that none of these five possible negative consequences of differentiating among populations is either inevitable or necessary. They represent misuse or partial use of the tools for improving programmes through disaggregation.
However, each does occur, repeatedly, both in field operations and in decision-making at headquarters. To avoid misuse of the tools of disaggregation, development agencies need to be aware of these potential pitfalls and must develop their analytic capabilities to ensure dynamic and appropriate categorisation of people's differences in any context where they are working. Assumptions about differences carried from one locale to another can never be more than partially accurate. They must be reexamined and reevaluated over time, and from place to place.
Appreciating diversity
An emphasis on the importance of recognising and appreciating cultural diversity can also have negative consequences in development programming. Two possible pitfalls deserve discussion.
First, recognition of diversity sometimes leads to complete `ad hocism'. If every place and every culture is different, then (some believe) we must empty our minds of past experiences as we approach each new area. The result is that there is no attention to cumulating and codifying lessons about effective programming.
The issue is not simple. We have just noted in the paragraphs above that assumptions about differences carried from one locale to another can be wrong. We now raise the danger that development practitioners will fail to learn from experience and fail to improve their effectiveness if they regard each programme-setting as different from all other locations. How can one remain open to differences and, at the same time, learn from and accumulate experience, so that development efforts become increasingly effective?
One answer to this apparent conundrum lies in learning to ask the right questions as a basis for designing development programmes -- questions which are common to all settings -- rather than in applying a common solution which is unlikely to be appropriate from one place to the next. Disaggregation methodologies discussed in Section 1 provide systems for asking such questions. From experience, we have learned that in every society there are some groups who are disadvantaged relative to other groups. Who, why, and in what way this occurs varies from society to society (according to socio-political and cultural diversity). From experience, we have learned how to ask questions that will help us to learn, in any society, how roles are assigned to different groups, how resources (both material and political) are divided, and what factors lie behind and shape these role-assignments and resource-divisions. Recognising that patterns differ from society to society, but using past experience to alert us to what to look for and how, allows us to abandon assumptions and to find out facts that are critical for effective programming. Thus, if disaggregation is rightly understood and diversity is well appreciated, it is not necessary to approach each situation with a blank mind and to develop ad hoc programming without benefit of past experience.
The second dilemma raised by emphasising the importance of appreciating cultural diversity is more difficult. This is the tendency for an appreciation of differences to be translated into total cultural relativism. Some people feel that an appreciation of local customs and values entails suspension of judgement about them. Everything that exists in a society is accepted as valid for that society and, therefore, not to be tampered with by outside aid providers. Very often, however, appreciation of cultural diversity is used to justify the acceptance of systems of dominance and exploitation that exist within societies. A primary example of this is the claim made by some international and indigenous development practitioners that assistance should not undertake to change the relationships between men and women in the societies where it is offered.
Again, the issue is not simple. What is an appropriate balance between a commitment to universal values (such as equality) and an appreciation of local values that differ from (or deny) the universal values to which one is committed?
Answers to this apparent conundrum are offered in several of the papers included in this volume. Decisions of agencies and individuals about where and how to express disagreement with local values always reflect both the depth of disagreement and the realities of any given context. In my experience, however, an `outsider' is never in the position of, alone, representing some `universal' value. Rather, within every society, there are individuals and groups who are themselves engaged in propagation of the values considered `universal'. Moreover, aid workers' claims that appreciation of local culture forces silence in areas where `outsiders' disagree are disingenuous, in that the very act of working for development amounts to a declaration that all is not right with the situation prevailing in the area of work. All development and humanitarian assistance interacts and interferes with local structures and systems and, if effective, reinforces changes in these structures and systems that some parts of the local society seek and other parts, very likely, resist. To pretend otherwise is to deny the very purpose of the effort. Explicit acknowledgment of areas of disagreement, coupled with understanding of local culture and respect for the people but not for the specific values with which one disagrees, provides a basis for continuing dialogue and exploration of differences. I would argue that honesty about differences in values is an essential element of respect; to remain silent about areas where there are differences of values is to show disrespect for the other's ability to join in debate and the mutual search for common ground.
We have explored difficulties and problems that arise both from misapplied recognition of differences and from too facile an emphasis on appreciation of cultural diversity, and we have suggested some possible ways of addressing these difficulties. Though I have explored these possible negative outcomes, readers should be in no doubt about this author's commitment to both disaggregation methodologies and the appreciation of diversity as essential elements of effective development and humanitarian assistance. International (and insider) assistance cannot be well offered without these elements, and it is for this reason that we must be alert to their wrong application as well.
This stated, we turn now to a seemingly new (but perhaps quite old) challenge that development practitioners face as they seek to navigate through the shoals of difference and diversity. If there were a chance that my discussion, above, of possible difficulties could be misinterpreted as an excuse for not doing gender analysis or, otherwise, programming with attention to differences, then the dangers of misinterpretation of what follows are even greater. I caution and implore readers to be attentive to the dilemmas I am attempting to raise for our further, collective exploration, as I am convinced from my own experience that, if we fail to face the difficulties I will discuss below (as well as above), we shall risk doing more harm than good with the people whom we seek to help.
When differences lead to widespread violent conflict
Over the years, narrow attention to improving income levels has been replaced by broad attention to social, political, and cultural elements in development programming. Attempts to understand how people are excluded from sharing in their societies' wealth motivated not only recognition of differences and diversity, as noted above, but also explicit programming efforts to overcome that exclusion. Thus, many development efforts have focused on alleviating poverty and have, as a result, operated in alliance with the poor. Non-governmental organisations in particular have taken up development efforts as an expression of their commitment to justice and against exploitation. They have used the mechanism of development programming to express `solidarity' with those whom they see as suffering from unjust systems. Their commitment to justice has demanded that they `side with' those who suffer injustice.
In taking on the just cause of the poor, development programming has often promoted confrontation between those it is intended to help and those seen as perpetuating unjust systems. Development practitioners speak of `empowering' those without power; they organise and encourage women's (and other) groups to analyse the causes of their oppression and to recognise their power to affect change.
This is good. Injustice must be confronted and power should be shared. However, the outbreak of multiple, civilian-based wars within societies since the end of the Cold War has caused me to take another look at the impacts of the well-intended alliances with the marginalised that we, in the development field, have pursued. A reexamination of our approaches of recent years shows that, very often, we have promulgated a perception that the evil which people experience in poverty, exclusion, etc. is embodied in some other group which holds wealth, power, etc. We have identified `problems' with people, and we have encouraged those with whom we work also to do so.
This approach entails problems. Let me suggest three.
First, as we noted in Section 1, it is wrong to assume homogeneity in any group of people whom we identify as needing our support. It is equally wrong to assume that `oppressor' groups are homogeneous. Within all privileged groups there are individuals who, though they benefit from existing systems, are extremely uncomfortable with these systems. They often take immense risks and sometimes sacrifice their lives and livelihoods to end their own privilege. In addition, there are always people who benefit, without thought, from socio-political systems and who are threatened by the idea of change through which (they fear) they will not only lose their privilege but also be dominated by some other group. However, these are not evil people. If approached with a vision of how change might result in benefits for all, many of these individuals can be enlisted in the pursuit of broadened justice. Both the sacrificial few and the not-selfish many could become allies for social and political change, if they were allowed to do so; but categorisations of people as `those in power' have too often limited our ability to differentiate among them and to see them as worthy of association and common planning.
Second, a programmatic emphasis on differences and diversity has, in some cases, supported tendencies towards social disintegration and divisiveness. In the power vacuums that followed the end of the Cold War, opportunistic leaders emerged in a number of places who found that their power could be solidified through manipulation of sub-group identities. Too often, these leaders defined their societies' problems in inter-group terms and encouraged their followers to define their own access to justice and power in opposition to the attainment of these by other groups. In too many cases, these so-called leaders have excited people to conflict on the basis of these identities, citing past wrongs and injustices as the motivator of their warfare. But in country after country (current Afghanistan, former Yugoslavia, southern Tajikistan, Somalia ... the list can be extended), the evidence is strong that such `leaders' are really only pursuing power and, by the techniques they rely on, perpetuating inter-group injustice, rather than creating systems for ensuring broadly inclusive justice.
Has international assistance caused such conflicts? The answer is clearly `no'. But, it is also clear that, in many places where wars have recently broken out, these conflicts have not been started by poor or marginalised people in a `people's revolution' (though these are the people most often enlisted into the fighting forces, because there are few other employment opportunities in their societies). Though disadvantage and injustice are often cited as the `root causes' of war, the evidence is strong that civil wars in which former neighbours, co-workers, and, even, family members take up arms against each other do little to further either equality or justice. And, sadly, there is some evidence that the promotion of differences by the international aid community can be put to the use of and reinforce social divisiveness where it exists.
Finally, one should ask, if we seek to identify sub-groupings of society that have been silenced through amalgamation into the whole, where might this ultimately end? Will the groups that deserve external support for recognition of their rights get smaller and smaller? Will identities be formed around more and more special and particular histories? If so, how will societies accommodate the centrifugal forces of such sub-group splits?
Towards a balance of difference and sameness
We began this essay by noting that people and peoples differ. We end by noting that people and peoples have much in common. While important differences exist in experience, in access, in status, and in roles, it is also true that important samenesses prevail across human experience, struggles, and activities. If both are true, how might the development community maintain its commitment to recognising differences because they are central for effective programme design and, at the same time, initiate programmes that encourage recognition of common interests and shared values? If, after all, people need to live together in this world, what strategies may we discover by which to overcome injustice without, at the same time, increasing inter-group hostilities and creating anew the systems of dominance and oppression in which the actors only trade places, but the actions continue?
As he led the movement for Independence from Britain in India, Mohandas Gandhi always instructed his followers to differentiate between oppression and oppressors. He enjoined people to fight with all their strength against oppression, but to work with the oppressor to change the systems that entrapped them both. Of course, not all oppressors want to be worked `with' to end their dominance. But the point is still salient. Again, I ask the reader not to misunderstand my point. As Gandhi said, oppression must be resisted and overcome. The issue I am raising here is an issue of approach, of strategy. How might we best engage in the pursuit of justice to ensure that we do not create or reinforce other injustices along the way? Given past experience and especially recent experience, we should challenge ourselves to greater levels of creativity and exploration.
We must find ways to promote economic and social well-being for those who have been left out -- ways that also appeal to the humanity of those who have benefitted from existing systems. We must develop programming approaches, and systems of economy and society, that acknowledge differences and diversity and, at the same time, unite rather than distinguish people's interests. We must work to empower marginalised groups -- not in relation to other people, but in relation to their participation in decisions and actions that affect their lives. We are on the steep rise of a learning curve about the impacts -- intended and unintended -- of development assistance. As we develop tools of analysis that help us to see who is disadvantaged and how disadvantage occurs, we must also develop new tools of action that undo these systems without pitting people, and groups of people, against each other.
December 1995
Notes
1 I use quotation marks to designate `insiders' and `outsiders', in order to reflect the fact that, very often, aid workers from inside the country where aid is given are perceived as, and exhibit qualities of, outsiders. Their experiences and attitudes (often urban or educated) may be as `foreign' as those from other lands and cultures, and may just as surely distance them from the intended beneficiaries of their aid. In this paper, I am referring primarily to issues which are pertinent to international assistance, because I, myself, belong to the `international aid body'. However, much if not most of what is said applies, I believe, also to indigenous NGO and other local aid efforts.
