Category Archives: The Ivory Towers

The More Fashionable Berlin Conference

In Africa, we were around thousands of people who have seen a lot of poverty, but they were fun at the end of the day- Angelina Jolie

I used to assume after watching the movie Blood Diamonds [sic] that diamonds were not acceptable to buy from Africa. However, it is the complete opposite! -Kim Karasian after visiting diamond mines in Botswana

I am overwhelmed and inspired by my trip to Malawi and hope that it helps bring attention to how much more the world needs to do to help the children of Africa- Madonna

I represent a lot of people [in Africa] who have no voice at all… They haven`t asked me to represent them. It’s cheeky but I hope they’re glad I do.’- Bono

And one more quote from Bono, just because I care so deeply for him and his sunglasses:

Africa is sexy and people need to know that – Bono, The New York Times

Celebrity involvement in development has appeared to have exponentially grown over the past few years. Each month there is another story of an international celebrity donating, building, adopting etc. in Africa:

‘Angelina Jolie builds orphanage with her very own hands’

‘Madonna adopts entire African village’

‘Bono cures AIDS’

The idea of ‘African development’ has materialized in the shape of celebrity causes. Since I am attempting to explore the ways in which development is substantiated in North America or the ‘developed’ world, the involvement of celebrities in development is an interesting topic. The argument in favor of celebrity involvement in ‘African development’ usually follows the logic of why should they not do something positive with their fame and fortune? In their positions of influence, why not draw attention to the dire situations around the world?

Well I, along with help from some all-knowing academics, will tell you why not. With the greater involvement of celebrities in development, academics have busted out of their ivory towers and joined forces to squash this idea of this positive altruism. In their article ‘The Downside of Celebrity Diplomacy: The Neglected Complexity of Development’ Heribert Dieter and Rajiv Kumar explore the relationship between celebrities and development in three particular areas :

First, [they] chart the rise of prominent celebrity activists in international affairs, in particular their impact on development policies of the member countries of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Second, [they] examine the competence of celebrities to handle development issues and suggest a more nuanced and less paternalistic approach. Third, [they] consider the legitimacy of celebrity activists and whether these nonelected individuals are well positioned to berate democratically elected governments.

In the first page of their article Dieter and Kumar summarize their argument:

The Irish rock star Paul Hewson, better known as Bono, is not only the front man of the band U2 but has also become the champion of an antipoverty movement with worldwide impact. Bono is supported by US economist Jeffrey Sachs, who has become a global spokesperson for poverty reduction, especially in Africa. Surprisingly, the recipes being suggested by Bono and Sachs are breathtakingly one-dimensional and akin to the sweeping propositions of the 1960s: give aid to Africa, waive debt, and provide education, and the continent will develop. While these remedies may look seductive, unfortunately the reality is far more complex and demands attention to the specific circumstance of each individual country or subregion. Grand ideas for development are a dangerous recipe and may in fact worsen the situation of the poor.

In their argument Dieter and Kumar, raise very important issues regarding celebrity knowledge of development and their portrayal of Africa. I do not doubt that most celebrities involved in ‘development’ are legitimately passionate for the causes they are championing. However, the methods in which they go about addressing the so-called issues are problematic. As argued by Dieter and Kumar, celebrities often offer simplistic solutions:

-Angelina Jolie proposes to build more schools, improve conditions in refugee camps

-Kim Khardasian champions more purchasing of diamonds to fuel African economies

-Madonna raises funds to build more orphanages or improves the lives of African children by bringing them to America

-Bono loudly champions more school, education that is more accessible, more condoms

While there seems to be nothing inherently negative about these suggested methods of ‘developing’ Africa, there ineffectiveness has clearly been illustrated with the reversal of development that has happened over the past century in Africa (In her work Dead Aid, Dambisa Moyo reviews how the trillions of dollars of aid pumped into Africa have not improved conditions). Many scholars and development practitioners have argued against the effectiveness of the sort of development championed by celebrities (see Kapoor, Ilan “Participatory Development, Complicity and Desire 2005, Giles Mohan and Kristian Stokke “Participatory Development and Empowerment: the Dangers of Localism 2000). The theories presented by these scholars criticize common participatory frameworks of development and suggest rethinking the concept of development. These critical development theories would imply that celebrities are unqualified to suggest methods of ‘developing’ Africa. But why would we expect them to? Why would individuals who devoted their entire lives to careers based on themselves, suddenly be qualified to address one of the most complex international situations? Dieter and Kumar’s argument that celebrities’ “grand suggestions for development…may infact worsen the situation” is an idea I have wrestled with extensively in my own work. I have reviewed the various ways in which the ‘third world’ is portrayed in the North American media and how these visuals are tied to notions of ‘development’ that are unsustainable and may worsen the situation.

The ways in which celebrities often frame Africa and development fall into these categories:

-Africa as a whole or country

-Africa as destitute

-Africa as rural

-Africa as ‘black’ ( Paulette Goudge’s work The Whiteness of Power: Racism in Third World Development and Aid greatly addresses this topic)

-African development as reliant on us (us being the western world)

Without getting into it too extensively (as I would like to address it over various blog entries), I argue that these representations result in the employment of development methods that ignore the complex histories, cultures and peoples of Africa.

Does building the same orphanage in Sierra Leone and Botswana and Zimbawe make sense?

Does adopting children address the historical, systemic and economic issues that various African nations face?

Is greater access to orphanages and schools improving the overall situation in African countries, or are we missing the target?

And the questions could go on and on.

I believe that celebrity involvement in development, similarly to consumerism, is not conducive to serious knowledge exchange regarding the complexities of development in Africa. It is this same notion of development that is pushed through fair trade products and travel holidays, in which ‘development’ must take place in the ‘third world’. There is often little conversation regarding international economic policies that are detrimental to African countries, North American interest in various African conflicts, or implications of colonial histories in current ideas of development.  Dieter and Kumar elegantly summarize my sentiments when they suggest that:

Celebrities’ contemporary calls to ‘make poverty history’ in Africa are so widely repeated and commonsensical that questions about the exceptionality of this humanitarian action itself rarely arise.

Celebrities are contributing to this understanding of development that must take place in the ‘third world’. The discourse of ‘they are the problem and we will help them’, is continually being disseminated to a population who worships celebrities. I believe that celebrities interested in aiding Africa, should stick to acting, singing or fashion and be involved in ‘development’ by giving some of the outrageous amount of money they make to development professionals, academics or people like myself…

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Aid, Bono, Celebrity, Current Events, Development, International Development, Paulette Goudge, Politics, The Ivory Towers

The Enlightened People.

The intellectual spoke the truth to those who had yet to see it, in the name of those who were forbidden to speak the truth: he was conscience, consciousness and eloquence.

-M. Foucault (http://libcom.org/library/intellectuals-power-a-conversation-between-michel-foucault-and-gilles-deleuze)

It would be unfair for me to neglect the field that sparked my interest in international development; Academia- the ivory towers, the enlightened population, the expansion of the mind (for merely thousands of dollars in tuition per year). It is within the context of academia and more specifically ‘international development studies’, that I became familiar with a plethora of ideas that I had not previously encountered:

Neo liberal development?

Dependency theory?

Rostow’s stages of development?

World bank/IMF structural adjustment programs?

Critical development theory?

Orientalism?

Biopower?

Escobar?

Etc.etc.etc.

The beginning of my academic career can be characterized by first intrigue into all of these new theories, second a confirmation that these were the right ways of viewing the world and lastly an anger at the rest of society for being so oblivious to these right ways of thinking. I would like to believe that I have evolved in my relationship with academia and have come a long way from this pretentious thought pattern but who knows. What has certainly happened however is that I have experienced academia within a variety of different settings, both in North America and the UK, through classroom settings, lectures, events, conferences. I have experienced it as both the student and as the ‘expert’. My feelings regarding the institution have shifted at different times and can be summed up as:

‘This is the most inspirational space, allowing for the critical perspective to flourish, there is no other space quite like this and I will stay here forever’

vs.

‘These people are so disconnected from reality, what are we doing sitting in our classrooms discussing people who we do not really know anything about. This is all bullshit and I cannot wait to leave’

While my perspective on the academic institution has clearly not been completely positive, I have continued my involvement within academia. Most recently, I attended a conference focused on new approaches to development and communication. This conference offered a variety of ‘experts’ within the field, speaking about topics of development and communication. In this conference I sat in on presentations regarding radio-based projects in Thailand, technology based teaching in the United States, a critical review of non-profit policies through discursive analysis etc. One of the keynote speakers at the conference was Dr. Sina Odugbemi, the Head of the World Bank Communication for Governance and Accountability Program. While many of the presenters had origins in the ‘developing’ world, there was little question about the institutionalization of a specific understanding of development, through academia. Why did development studies focus almost completely on the ‘third world’? Why did their societies need to be restructured to look more like ours? Was it the structure of the ‘first world’ that needed to be targeted in these development conferences?

Similar to the problems I have with other forms of development in North America, I often perceive a disconnect between academia and the issues/people being examined.  This  ‘we know best’ attitude, illustrated by the quote at the beginning of this blog, often abounds within academia and results in this atmosphere where those who were able to pay thousands of dollars have somehow become enlightened and know better than the rest of society.

A prime example of a theory that facilitates this ‘we know better’ attitude is ‘false consciousness’. False consciousness is a theory derived from Marxist theory on social class, although Marx never used the term. A simplified explanation of this term, is that false consciousness is characteristic of members of the lower classes of society.  Meaning, those from this class, for a variety of reasons are not really aware of why they have come to be in their condition. They are unaware of how the upper classes continue to keep them in their place in society, through exploitation, dominant ideology etc. This type of thinking often pervades development studies. In my experience, academic scholars have moved away from thinking they are best equipped to create development frameworks on their own, and turned to a more grassroots, involve those who are developing approach. There is still however, this academic community where ‘experts’ speak on behalf of the population they have studied, as I experienced in the communication and development conference.

To critique this aspect of academia, I turn to Foucault (yes I am using an academic to critique academia…go figure).

While Foucault has become a celebrated academic, he was greatly critical of the role of the academic. Foucault challenged the idea that it was the academic’s role to spread knowledge to the rest of society on behalf of some disadvantaged population. This critique becomes especially important in international development studies, where we study the conditions of a group of people we define as disadvantaged.  Barry Smart, explains Foucault argument:

Foucault’s [theory] has direct implications for the nature of intellectual work and for the role or function of the intellectual in modern societies . The traditional role ascribed to the intellectual has been to reveal the truth to those unable to see it or speak it. The function of such a “universal” intellectual has been to uphold reason, to be the “master of truth and justice” to represent the universal and to some extent to be the ‘consciousness-conscience of everyone”. Such a neutral and benevolent conception of the intellectual’s role and function has been disputed by Foucault on the grounds that evidence exists (e.g May ’68; prisoners rights and protest movements etc.) which suggests that ‘ordinary’  people have knowledge of their circumstances and are able to express themselves independently of the universal theorizing intellectual- that is the masses no longer need a representing or representative consciousness, they already have a knowledge of their conditions.

While Foucault’s ideas were based on a western context they do act as a serious challenge to academics in the field of international development. What role must us enlightened ones occupy, if those in African, South American, and Asian nations are aware of their own reality?

You mean they understand that they should not have to drink unclean water?

They know their conditions are different than ours?

They are aware of the methods necessary to improve their conditions?

Gasp.

If individuals are aware of their own conditions and know the methods to overcome them, what role then, can the academic play?

Smart summarizes Foucault’s ideas regarding the role of the academic:

Foucault acknowledged that forms of knowledge held and expressed by people have been blocked, prohibited and disqualified by and through a system of power of which intellectuals have been the principal agents. Hence for Foucault the role of the intellectual was to be concerned not with expressing the truth of the collectivity but with combating the forms of power in which intellectual activity was embedded.

It is this idea then, which I have tried to illustrate in my other blog posts, that efforts of ‘development’ need to take place within the space of the ‘developing world’. Rather than spending all of our efforts spreading knowledge about conditions in African villages, perhaps academics in the field of international development, can examine why institutions have been set up to exclude those in the villages from speaking on behalf of themselves. Why must anthropological research be the only means for ‘the locals’ to speak about their conditions? Why must those from African nations come to western institutions to learn about themselves before they are viewed as authoritative figures on the issues? Why does reading academic texts mean that we know what those in the ‘developing’ world are thinking?

I do not claim that academics are unaware of the inherent contradictions of their positions, as I have been involved with many that focus on these issues. There can be a great deal of self-reflection and self critique even within the ivory towers. I just believe that more of this needs to take place, especially within the field of international development. It is a disservice to international development studies programs, to be completely focused on theories pertaining  to ‘helping’ the ‘developing world’. Rather what is necessary is an examination of those changes that need to take place in western contexts, starting with academic institutions.  I hope that programs can integrate this sort of critical analysis rather than continue to speak on behalf of a ‘disadvantaged’ population.

Leave a comment

Filed under Academia, Current Events, Foucault, International Development, International Development Studies, Politics, The First World, The Ivory Towers, The Third World