This process of ‘othering’ is a result of the Self, (in the case of the West) projecting its poorer features on to the Other.
According to Said (1994) this process was rooted in power. It was non-innocent and emphasized an act of personal representation. He devised Orientalism as the ‘style of thought based upon an ontological and epistemological distinction made between “the Orient” and (most of the time) “the Occident”’ or more specifically ‘as a Western style for dominating, restructuring and having authority over the Orient’. It is important to note, once again, the difficulty in reducing these ideas to the West, as Orientalism, according to Said, was mostly a British and French enterprise with North America becoming dominant in the thought process only after World War 2.
‘Othering’ and Orientalism are closely linked with gender and sexuality. ‘[N]ature, Other, matter, unconscious, madness, hyle, and force have throughout Western philosophy carried feminine connotations’. For the 16th century invaders of the Americas – a male centred activity – using feminised descriptions of their situation was commonplace (part of the representative media mentioned). Similar attitudes are found towards the Orient: the fascination of the Harem, which lets the process of ‘othering ‘ to occur through fear, repulsion and desire.
Paris Plaisir Feb. 1930
Concerning sexuality, both male and female depictions, as well as homosexual ones are present. Black female servants were not only subordinate as a result of their gender and ethnicity (uncivilised savage) but also as a consequence of their uncontrolled sexuality. Similarly, black males were seen to have low controls over their sexual controls: notions of superiority in terms of the presenter. Before examining the influence these factors have on contemporary development theory one can examine contemporary sources of this notion of power.
Media still remains a very influential part of this notion, but the overt manner of expressing these ideas of paternal power are no longer obvious. Lutz and Collins (1993) discuss the influence of the National Geographic magazine in this context. They argue that ‘image is central to contemporary society’ and that ‘photograph and film have taken over from written texts the role of primary educator’. They also note the power of the institution based in Washington D.C., a power of knowledge which, in comparison to some ‘others’ may be misconstrued as superiority.
The Gulf War affair and the current ‘War against terrorism’ can also be considered as an example of media manipulation, spinning Operation Desert Storm and the initial Operation Infinite Justice into a tactic designed to portray Western superiority. Literature on this subject is limited, but it is interesting to consider the possibilities of manipulation available to privatised news networks owned by media magnates such as Time – Warner.
The appropriation of these ideas all rely upon situated knowledge and postionality, even in the ‘modern’ era the possibility of an objective approach to an argument is implausible. Philosophically, objectivity is not possible; using texts and descriptions for an argument (even this one) require a standpoint from an academic arena or social institution. Yet development theory has depended on this process extensively, and still does.
Rationality since the enlightenment period encourages concepts such as science and progress to pervade Western thought: concepts that can be argued to constitute superiority through comparing disparate levels of Western knowledge. These disparate levels are historically evident in tribalism, primitivism and barberism as well as modern versions of these; ethnicity, illiteracy and ignorance. Rahnema (1998) describes four ways in which poverty can be interpreted. Firstly, there is the materiality’s involved: constructs upon which poverty is based. The lack of these ‘things’ by the person defining them can be perceived of as poverty. Secondly, poverty depends on the subject’s own definition of it, which is closely linked with the third factor; how others view the poor. These are important because a person’s notion of their predicament is often dependant on how others react to them and how they invent or qualify their status. Finally, there are ‘Spimes’ (socio-cultural space-times) which obviously affect perceptions of poverty due to changes in space and time. These definitions of poverty are susceptible to being warped by using the West as a yardstick.
Development theory tackles these constructs by providing an action plan through government institutions, professionals and competent authorities. The ‘underdeveloped’ peoples of the world, which President Truman created in his inaugural speech (1945), along with their incapacity to define their own interests, could thus be subject to an authority’s dual interests. These interests are helping and enabling the ‘underdeveloped’ to be helped. This latter point is obviously a necessity in the provision of aid and one rooted in notions of superiority. It was (and is) enabled by showing undeveloped and developing countries what their goals should be by using teleological ideals – progression. The ‘other’ has the purpose of playing catch-up with the ‘self’, using similar approaches such as increasing production of goods and services and lowering trade barriers (along Keynesian lines).
A teleological concept often mentioned when discussing development is Rostow’s ‘Stages of Growth’ theory (1971). Here a notion of superiority is clear; the end is known at the outset and the end is the goal i.e. mass consumption shown by Western culture. This also assumes that all economies that are not presently capitalist, will have to convert to gain the materialistic ‘joys’ of such an ideology: a notion that the ‘Western Way’ is superior and that development theory must subscribe to this. This growth theory formed under the context of modernization: a Eurocentric process, it relied upon the extension of advanced societies over less advanced ones. The unilinearilty of this movement implies the presence of a homogenising superior power – that of the West. Blaut (1993) sees Rostow as having ‘married world history to world development in a single diffusionist argument’.
There are however, indications that the development process is undercutting Western genealogy. Crush (1995) describes ‘a growing struggle to reassert the value of alternative experiences and ways of knowing’ (p.4); as well as increasing attempts by theorists to loosen the grasp Western knowledge has on development theory. He also witnesses the use of ‘textual turn’ in the way disciplines and institutions of development ‘make sense’ of the world. Not caring so much about its definition, he sees the literature on development as internally littered with stylisation, representation and symbolism. This shows the undercutting of Western genealogy because it portrays the growing interest of academics to try and find a more objective approach to development.
Participatory development may seem to constitute this ideal by getting down to grassroots level, however the approach relies on its relation with development. The crux of the matter is that development inherently relies upon superiority to exist.
Cowen and Shenton (1995) see development as arising to ‘ameliorate the perceived chaos caused by progress’ ch2. If one associates progress with rationality, we can in turn associate it with the West. This discussion has seen how it has been defined over time and through its exercise of ‘othering’. Mercantilism and its legitimisation was enabled through othering, sometimes so profound it constituted a discourse. Contemporary development theory can still rely upon modern media in ‘othering’, which in turn is still dependant on positionality.
Rationality and progress have enabled constructs and action plans to be implemented in development’s name, but this all may be coming to an end. Sachs (1992) declares development discourse dead, but offers no concrete alternative. In this present respect to development theory, Western superiority seems impossible, as the theories themselves are no longer purported to exist. Unfortunately, even this premise is rooted in a notion of superiority as Western academics have themselves used their power of knowledge and declared it (development), non-existent.
Words: 1717
Bibliography:
Allen, T. Thomas , A. (1992) Poverty and development in the 1990’s (Oxford, Open Uni.)
(2000) Poverty and development in the 21st century (Oxford, Open Uni.)
Blaut, J. (1993) The colonizers model of the world (Guilford)
Breckenridge, C. (1993) Orientalism and the postcolonial predicament (Univ. of Pennsylvania)
Crang, M. (1998) Cultural geography (London: Routledge)
Crush, J (1995) Power of development (London: Routledge)
Jardine, A. (1993) Gynesis (Cornell Univ. Press)
Lutz, C., Collins, J. (1993) Reading National Geographic (Univ. of Chicago Press)
Preston, P., Wallace, P. (1996) Development: an introduction (Oxford: Blackwell)
Johnston, R., Gregory, D., Pratt. G., Watts, M. (2000) Dictionary of Human geography (Blackwell)
Sachs, W. (ed.) (1992) The Development Dictionary (Zed Books)
Rahnema, M. Poverty
Gronemeyer, M. Helping
Escobar, A. Planning
Said, E. (1994) Orientalism (Penguin)
Adapted from Escobar (1992)
Von Humboldt (in Blaut 1993)
Lutz, Collins (1993: Ch1)
Knowledge that is academic; gained through institutions i.e. quantifiable on paper - achievements