Development Studies: Socio-economic Development from an Interdisciplinary Perspective Saleha Erdmann |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
In retrospect: Writing this paper was the first time I applied feminist theory of any kind to development. This one is explicitly about development, so I don't think I need to provide much explanation. Mutual Power in a Hegemonic World: applying feminist theologian critiques of power to development Rel 209--Booth, December 2004 Many feminist theologians have criticized power structures within Christianity, claiming that power has been constructed to be a form of domination and control over others. This criticism is easily transferred to other aspects of Western society that may not be explicitly religious, but are nevertheless, relevant to feminist theology. Heather Eaton (2000), an ecofeminist liberation theologian, claims that “the basic need for theology [is] to be attending to the world, rereading the signs of the time and being something of significance in this global reality” (p. 44). Today’s global reality is one where the richest nations host 16% of the world population and own 81% of the wealth (Joseph, Kesselman & Krieger, 2004). It is a reality of inequality and for many it is a reality of violence, discrimination and hopelessness. Since the end of World War II “development” has been one a significant proposed solution to perceived economic and political inferiority of non-Western nations. However, development discourse often displays the same types of destructive power relations that feminist theologians identify within Christianity, which is not surprising considering the symbiotic relationship between Christianity and Western thought. There are two main reasons that feminist theologians have a place in the discussion of power and development: First, Christianity and the Western ideology that birthed the development paradigm are in an often overlapping and symbiotic relationship. Second, Christian churches and organizations are already highly involved in the development process and feminist theology could inform their activity within development. Christian theology is built up around many models of power as domination. Rosemary Radford Ruether (1993) emphasizes the hierarchical structure of Christianity that allows one group to dominate over another (in her work, men over women). Sallie McFague (1987) writes that conceptions of power as a form of domination have been a central feature of the Western view of God, “The stress is on the separation of god from the world and on God’s control of it: God is the supreme and holy being who rules and saves the world” (p 18). The idea that reality can be separated into distinct spheres and placed in categories of positive and negative value has plagued Christianity and Western thought in general. As McFague points out, this idea allows God to be seen as separate. Viewing God as separate and external to humanity becomes translated onto the human relationship with the world. When humans perceive themselves as apart from other individuals, groups and nature it is easy to justify an ethnocentric and anthropocentric worldview. Carter Heyward (1989) labels this “alienated power.” She writes that, “In our alienated society, power has come to mean power-over others’ lives, well-being, senses of self-worth and survival. Power has come to mean domination by a few over the lives and deaths of many” (p. 52). Manifestations of these power relations are often expressed through destructive language, in terms that Eaton (2000) calls “hegemonic, hierarchical-dualistic interpretations of the world” (p. 49). McFague’s (1989) description of the “Almighty God” and God as father are examples. Christian language often sets up reality in terms of dualisms—body and soul, sin and purity, heaven and hell. Dualisms create a simplistic view of the world that allows for the assignment of positive and negative values. In addition, this kind of language encourages and reinforces relationships of dominance and subordination between God and humanity, men and women, Christian and Muslim, humanity and nature. McFague writes that, “by seeking security through our constructions, we refuse to step outside the houses of language we have erected to protect us from the emptiness of the terror we cannot control” (p. 25). Through language, power as domination is spoken into existence and life becomes easier to explain. It also becomes more harmful to everything and everyone involved and inhibits the expression and appreciation of the complex fullness of God. Parallel issues emerge in the development paradigm, but before they can be addressed, some historical context is necessary. The development paradigm was conceived in the wake of World War II, with roots in colonialism, capitalism and Enlightenment ideals (McMichael, 2000). Western, particularly American, interests also significantly shaped development. McMichael describes the construction of development as a “political and intellectual response to the state of the world at the historical moment of decolonization” (p. 7). Decolonization displaced the explicit power of outside forces over the Third World, but many colonial power structures remained intact and continue to influence development into the present. Alvin So (1990) adds that development theory was also a response to the rise of the United States as a superpower and a united world communist movement, as well as the collapse of colonialism . Early development, under the guidance of modernization theory, was mostly articulated in economic terms and the anti-communist rhetoric of the Cold War. In a famous 1949 speech, President Harry Truman described the goal of development as to “make available to peace-loving peoples the aspiration for a better life…What we envisage is a program of development based on the concepts of democratic fair dealings…Greater production is the key to prosperity and peace. And the key to greater production is a wider and more vigorous application of modern scientific and technical knowledge” (cited in Escobar, 1995, p. 3). Development was advertised as an effort to share the wealth with the rest of the world; more cynical scholars like Arturo Escobar (1995) argue that development was an attempt by key Western actors to establish a network of power over the non-Western world. Non-theologian feminists like author Catherine V. Scott (1995) see the use of power as domination within development as a manifestation of “masculine privilege.” Two of the common themes of masculinity and development that Scott identifies are the use of dichotomies (or dualisms), and “metaphorical language that characterizes development as a battle, struggle or war” (p. 7). The new language invented by the development paradigm illustrates the same kinds of hierarchical, dualistic relationships established within Christianity. Beginning in the 1940’s the world was divided up into the “First, Second and Third Worlds”; “developed” and “undeveloped” (and later “underdeveloped”); “developing world” and “industrialized world.” These apportionments of the world envision the West as the superior societal model that the “Third World” may eventually emulate through neoliberal economics, democratization and general contact with Western society. Scott’s most import contribution to this discussion is her critique of the metaphorical language used in development discourse. Development in the Third World is often portrayed as a battle, struggle or war (i.e. the “war on poverty”). These violent images encourage one to think of development as a process of domination and eventual triumph. Development as a global reality today has a different face. However, the same outdated underlying values continue to shape development and to reinforce the concept of hegemonic power. For example, the Green Revolution (note the use of the violent word “revolution”) in the 1970’s attempted to remedy rural poverty in the Third World. The Green Revolution aimed to increase agricultural output by introducing hybrid seeds with higher yields. These hybrid crops required more water, fertilizer, pesticides and other chemicals. Packages including seeds, technology, and chemicals were distributed throughout the developing world and the project was hailed as a momentous humanitarian effort. Agricultural productivity did increase in many areas, but the benefits rarely reached the poorest farmers. The costs and information reuiqred for the new, “modern” inputs resulted in a widening of the gap between the rural rich and poor. In addition, intensified land use and misapplication of chemicals increased environmental degradation (McMichael, 2000). The Green Revolution was designed with the best of intentions, but was based on the idea that poverty and starvation should be overcome through domination of the environment. The result was environmental destruction and the reinforcement of social hierarchies. An oppressive definition of power has shaped the idea that the Third World must overcome its traditional cultural and economic institutions through processes like industrialization, modernization, and monetization. In general, the emphasis on economics as the ruling and autonomous sector of society has devalued the richness of culture and relationships throughout the whole world. Indeed, the development paradigm “imposed an essentially economic understanding on social life” (McMichael, 2000, 7). Heyward (1989) views the authority of the economic sphere over society as a dangerous threat to our wellbeing: “We humans, together with other earth creatures, are diminished in the context of the late Twentieth Century capitalist global order. In this context, the capacity to love our bodies, enjoy a strong sense of self-esteem, take real pleasure in our work, and respect and enjoy either ourselves or others very much is at diminished capacity” (p. 51). The concept of power as a form of control or domination is narrow minded and destructive, which scholarly analysis has revealed within development. Feminist theology, in turn, identifies the same issues of “alienated power” within Christianity. It is time for the employment of a new concept of power—a call that many feminist theologians have already responded to. “In the praxis of alienated power, the power of mutual relation is in eclipse” (p. 56), writes Heyward (1989). A new form of power that many feminist theologians have identified is based on the ability to work in relation to and care for others—to “empower” each other instead of just ourselves. McFague (1987) calls this an organic/evolutionary, ecological model that “unites by symbiotic, mutual interdependencies, creating a pattern of internal relations” (p. 10-11). She adds that in the past these traits have been considered a weakness, (especially in women) but that we should value this “sensitivity to the needs of others, responsibility for including and caring for others, rather than an autonomous thinking and clear decision making in regard to the conflicting rights of separate parties” (p. 12-13). A model of power based on mutuality would profoundly transform Christian theology and the schools of thought that it so strongly influences, like the development paradigm. If development were to successfully be redefined in terms of power as mutuality the world could no longer be seen as autonomous regions defined by their GDPs, population growth and status on human development indices. The West would have to acknowledge its dependent and often oppressive relationship with the rest of the world. The West would also have to acknowledge the valuable contributions other cultures can make to development, or perhaps that the whole concept of development is destructive. Marginalized members of society would be welcomed into society and there would be a return to the focus on strong communities. The human place within nature would be celebrated and humans would look for new ways to interact with the environment. The entire political, theoretical and economic infrastructure of development would be reborn. Feminist theology is a useful tool in addressing power relations within development, one that would dramatically reform development discourse. But as of yet, very little work has been done on the intersection of the two subjects. Heather Eaton (2000) expresses her disillusionment in her article on theology’s response to globalization, which is often a process within development. “I measure the religious response to this globalization reality and my spirit sinks. I feel the impotence of theology” (p. 44). Eaton calls a theology that ignores the dominance of multinational corporations and economic power an “autistic theology” and writes that it “continues to be a hegemonic form” (p. 42). She worries that the ecofeminist and liberation theologies she is familiar with are using old theological structures to address current issues, “Are we drinking father’s milk through female authors?” (p.45). What Eaton has identified is what Heyward’s (1989) concept of “alienated power,” Eaton sees the presence of alienated power within the very school of thought that named the concept. Feminist theologians have many insightful analyses into the construction of power relations, but their insight applies to problems within feminist theology as well. Christians need to consider their approach to development. If destructive power dynamics are embedded in Christianity and development ideology then Christians must be self-critical of their roles. What kinds of solutions are they proposing? What values inform how they attend to development? How do they address the people they are trying to help? What kinds of relationships are they modeling? This process of reflection and questioning is often uncomfortable and challenging, but it is necessary if Christians truly wish to serve the world. Feminist theologians address oppression and the harm it has on all of humanity and its relationship to God. They hope to reshape religion and then apply it to the problems facing this world. Issues of development are some of the most significant challenges in our global reality today, and are therefore highly relevant to the goals of feminist theology. There are many elements of development discourse that need reworking and they are often based in a destructive use of power. Feminist theologians must accept the challenge to address development and its underlying power structures. What feminist theologians have to say about power and development is relevant to all people, but in relation to religion, it is especially important for Christians to listen. If Christianity is to be a positive vehicle for change then Christians need to understand what tools they are using to achieve it. If they discover that their tools are being used as weapons, then a complete reworking of power is necessary. True strength and power is at the core of our interdependencies, and it is through mutuality that Christians and all people must work to find peace.
Works Cited Eaton, Heather. 2000. “Ecofeminism and Globalization.” Feminist Theology: The Journal of the Britain & Ireland School of Feminist Theology. May 2000 (24): 41-56. Escobar, Arturo. 1995. Encountering Development: the making and the unmaking of the third world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Press. Heyward, Carter. 1989. “Heterosexism, enforcing white male supremacy.” In Touching our Strength. San Francisso: Harper and Row. Joseph, William; Kesselman, Mark; & Kreiger, Joel. 2004. Introduction to the Politics of the Developing World, 3rd Ed. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. Jubilee 2000 Coalition. 1999, September 8. “Pope will meet Bono, Harvard Econmist Jeffrey Sachs and Quincy Jones to keep up the momentum on debt.” Retrieved December 17, 2004, from http://www.jubilee2000uk.org/jubilee2000/news/bono0809.html Lutheran World Relief. 2004, December 17. Retrieved December 17, 2004 from http://www.lwr.org McFague, Sallie. 1987. Models of God: theology for an ecological, nuclear age. Philadephia: Fortress Press McMichael, Phillip. 2000. Development and Social Change:a global perspective, 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Reuther, Rosemary Radford. (1993). Sexism and God-Talk: toward a feminist theology. Boston: Beacon Press. Scott, Catherine V. 1995. Gender and Development: rethinking modernization and dependency theory. Boulder: L Rienner Publishers. So, Alvin. 1990. Social Change and Development: modernization, dependency, and world-systems theories. Newbury park, CA: Sage Publication.
|
|||||||