Philosopher views
Grassroots Post-Modernism
Download 5.81 Mb.
|
Grassroots Post-ModernismEsteva has developed numerous indictments, interrogations, and discussions of development and other issues related to the subject. This brief focuses most exclusively on one of the most central as articulated in Grassroots Post-Modernism. His other works are easily accessible on-line and may be consulted to add extended nuance to this position. To develop his argument Esteva, along with Prakash, critique the development paradigm before discussing their alternative perspective on the topic and applying it to several contexts. This brief is organized in a similar manner. The Global Projects “Three Sacred Cows” Esteva’s project begins with an understanding of what he refers to as the “Global Project.” He understands this project to be a process through which developed nations of the global North attempt to economically integrate “underdeveloped nations” into a world market and a “global village. This pursuit is done in the name of progress and development. No doubt informed by his experiences as a government official, Esteva and Prakash argue that, almost universally, these efforts not only are ineffective, but as will be discussed are counter productive. Indeed, as Esteva observes it is often corrupt government officials in nations comprising the global South who aid in facilitating projects that pursue globalized solutions to development and progress for little more than their own personal gain. Grassroots Postmodernism, the political project Esteva promotes, interrogates these efforts waged by institutions like the World Bank, WTO, and sundry multinational corporations. As Esteva and Prakash observe, “the emerging epic of grassroots initiatives for resisting the oppressiveness of modern minorities represents a clear rupture with some of the most fundamental promises of the modern era. In doing so, it leads the way in radically confronting some modern sacred cows. An examination of how these confrontations are initiated is offered below, however first it is important to identify the tenets of the “Global Project” and its many iterations that create the detrimental effects Esteva outlines. Esteva identifies the myth of global thinking as the first of the sacred cows of the “Global Project.” He claims that global thinking is the intellectual counterpart to global economy. He and Prakash argue that this thinking has led institutions and governments to presume that global solutions are needed to solidify global “human rights” and solve local problems. Esteva finds the notion of global thinking not only an oxymoron (see below), but also that asserting its superiority generates solutions that efface the local, cultural traditions of its supposed beneficiaries. For example, many contemporary agricultural polices and practices promoted by MNC’s and government aid projects destroy traditional, sustainable methods in favor of high-gross, high-impact farming techniques. Equally important to global thinking is the notion that local thinking is limited parochial, and backward. The second sacred cow is the universality of human rights which, Esteva and Prakash argue, is used to constitute the moral justification for global thinking. Enshrined in the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, these “universal human rights” generate significant tensions and ignore local differences. Likewise, Esteva explains that “in the morally progressive, egalitarian and just global economy of the post-modern era, every individual will enjoy exercising his or her human rights. The western recolonization inherent in the global declaration of these human rights remains as imperceptible to postmodernists as to the modernists they accuse of cultural imperialism.” Last, Esteva and Prakash identify the myth of the individual self. They argue that development projects initiated within the framework of the “Global Project” attempt to “liberate” the modern self from attachments that prevent easily fitting the individual self into the global economy. Thus, becoming “a member with full rights and privileges of the club, joining the society and culture of Homo oeconomicus. Ultimately, this separates individuals from their communities and replaces any community-based connectedness with the loneliness and disease with development and the “illusion of interpersonal connectedness.” This becomes particularly important later, as Esteva believes that it is only on the local level through interconnected communities that global forces of development may be resisted. Global Thinking is Impossible The problems that each of these “sacred cows” generate becomes more apparent through Esteva’s and Prakash’s discussion of the specific problems with global thinking and the advantages of localized, grassroots action. Addressing further the problem with contemporary development projects that think globally under the auspices of “standards of living,” “quality of life,” or “human rights,” Esteva and Prakash contend that we can only think about that which we actually know well. Thus, institutions and initiatives that stem from the Global North to solve the problems of the Global South can be “at best only an illusion and at worst the ground for the kinds of destructive and dangerous actions perpetrated by... the World Bank or the global environmental movement.” Litanies of examples reflect the failures to launch effective solutions at a global level. The Green Revolution of the 1960’s and 70’s in Central and Latin America reflects such a failure. Ostensibly initiated to revitalize and modernize the agricultural industry of those nations, the project contributed to extensive problems. Improper training, failure to account for local economic needs, and other missteps resulted in severe environmental and economic losses for affected nations. More contemporary actions also illustrate the problem. The effort for the U.S. to create democracies in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, illustrates the tendency for “global” or imposed solutions to fail to account for local needs and become not only ineffective, but also harmful. The Wisdom of Thinking Locally Presupposing that global thinking is ultimately doomed, Esteva and Prakash explain the “wisdom of thinking little”. They argue that efforts to create gigantic transnational movements to fight development and globalization are doomed. Likewise, they suggest that local actions that are “informed, shaped and determined by the global frame of mind, become as uprooted as those of other globalists they explicitly criticize.” Instead, Esteva suggest that development, improved quality of life, sustainable economies, etc, must begin with the ‘basics’. He offers food as an example. Rather, than waiting for Ralph Nader or an international organization to change the way we eat, Esteva and Prakash argue action should instead be devised and taken on the local level. They argue that ultimately every global institution has to concretize operations in actions that are necessarily local. Coke must sell its product, governments must borrow dollars to fund development programs. Since global institutions must establish their power at the local level, it is only there that it can be most effectively opposed. Examples of this are available throughout many communities. For example, community supported agriculture (CSAs) through which individuals buy foods that support local farmers and local resources provides a way to resist the efforts to globalize the economy, life, and standard of living of individuals. Similarly, the Zapatistas create their own schools that provide an education that values local culture and avoid efforts to recolonize and advance the “global project” under the auspices of human rights to education. Esteva suggests that on the local level that by saying “No!” communities can resist global institutions and corporations in the same voluntary ways they joined. Directory: uploads uploads -> 587 Return function, r i(X) r i(0) r i(1) r i(2) r i(3) 1 0 2 4 6 Thermal Station, I 2 0 1 5 6 3 0 3 5 6 10 uploads -> Department of science and humanities department of mathematics part-a questions and answers uploads -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? uploads -> For want of a nail uploads -> Ownership Models There are two different types of ownership models uploads -> Police Militarization uploads -> City of rising star regular meting thursday, july 14, 2016 uploads -> Township of winfield uploads -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 uploads -> The Black Panther Party’s Ten-Point Program What We Want Now! Download 5.81 Mb. Share with your friends:
|