Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Chapter II Basic definitions and terminology
Introduction
To avoid ambiguity and the possibility of wrong interpretations, a selection of notions and phrases which usually form part of literature and discussions in the field of development cooperation were selected for discussion and interpretation for the purpose of this study. In addition to a historical overview, the more contemporary concepts most likely to be used in this* work were included for discussion.
Special attention to contemporary development semantics was deemed necessary, because of: The different interpretations that are often accorded to the same phenomena, such as civil society: some regard civil society to be represented mainly by NGOs; others see civil society as the usual groups of ‘rabble rousers’, whereas civil society could generally be described as the area which is filled by those individuals and organisations who are not involved with the state nor with private enterprise.
Different perceptions of development factors: interpretations of concepts such as education, capacity building, enablement and empowerment are not always analogous. Such basic differences could lead to great misunderstandings.
The tendency to bring reified notions into play and blow them up beyond proportions should be identified at an early stage in order to bring distorted perceptions back to normal. For example, ‘education’ has become a reified term which can mean anything. Reified terms usually have a populist flavour because they are used to influence the views of the general population. Very little is said about how a reified notion should be brought about – it is regarded as being safer and of greater value if not too much is said about its implementation.
The frequent use of the same basic words to describe very different policies – just prefixes are changed, for instance the terms ‘Marxism’ and ‘neomarxism’, which should each be interpreted differently.
Another reason for the decision to insert a special chapter dealing with relevant development terminology, is to address the new vocabulary of the actor-oriented approach, as it is made applicable to development. It has been alluded to before that the actor-oriented approach is a combination of a number of disciplines. It is also rooted to some extent in post-modern thinking. Therefore, the various segments of the actor-oriented approach have to be brought together and explained at an early stage. This should facilitate better understanding of the various concepts (which mostly derive from the actor-oriented approach) and arguments, that are to be employed later on in this study.
Post-modern thinking and procedures
Because of the statement above, which connects the actor-oriented approach to post-modern thinking, it is deemed necessary to discuss postmodernism and to point to those post-modern factors which have a direct influence on the actor-oriented approach.
Postmodernism as concept has no definite date or place of origin. One fact, however, stands out: post-modern thinking had (and still has) a visible influence on a variety of sectors of society and development studies are no exception. As such, concepts that are to be discussed below, such as deconstruction; the focus on agency; ethnographic research; the heterogeneity of society; the disadvantages of reification, and the knowledge/power relationship, are all results of, and part of post-modern thinking. In this particular study, all the above factors and more have been taken into consideration and utilised. So, for instance, is the post-modern method of deconstruction, which was initially devised by Jacques Derrida (Appignanesi and Garratt 1995: 77). Deconstruction has been taken further by a series of development scholars and some of the latest views on it can be found, for instance, in Nederveen Pieterse: Presently the development field is bifurcating into a managerial stream – managing development as part of development bureaucracies – and an interpretative stream whose major concern is to deconstruct development, to unpack its claims and discourses, and once that is done, to deconstruct the deconstruction, for deconstruction is a never-ending task (2001: 164).
He goes one step further, bringing reconstruction also into play. In accordance with the title of his book (Development theory: Deconstructions/reconstructions) Nederveen Pieterse (2001: 33) proposes that deconstruction should be regarded as the prerequisite for reconstruction. In explaining reconstruction he remarks that it should not be a single reconstruction but rather a multifaceted ‘polycentric reconstruction, given varying itineraries and circumstances in different countries.’
Deconstruction of a target area for development has a role to play. In addition to a possible avenue to identify the actors in an intervention by dismantling the structures, deconstruction should also reveal hidden metaphors prevalent in the area which could stand in the way of an intervention, and be able to reveal modernisation theses which should be addressed in the course of the intervention.
There is a real doubt whether the deconstruction method should be seen as the only or the better option to find the actors. After all, a combination of deconstruction and ethnographic research and even more recent methods, should be utilised together wherever possible in order to obtain the best results.
The actor-oriented approach
The idea behind the actor-oriented approach is natural because it originates from the understanding that, whatever the structural circumstances may be, the approach will give rise to the development of different social forms. It can therefore be accepted that there will be a vast difference in the ways in which actors will handle situations that confront them.
Their cognitive, emotional and organisational skills will be determined by their social circumstances, which could include the multiple realities of social life, like heterogeneity of the society, cultural or power struggles within the society as well as a host of additional factors (also see par. 4.2.7.5 for further information on ‘multiple realities’). Norman Long sees the actor-oriented approach as an issue which is being driven from the constructionist perspective, which entails:
… remaking of society through the ongoing self-transforming actions and perceptions of a diverse and interlocked world of actors (Long 2001: 5).
Because development cooperation is often described as a process of ‘remaking’ a society, there should be an automatic affinity and general compatibility between the actor-oriented approach and development cooperation. Chapter IV contains a comprehensive discussion of the actor-oriented approach that will substantiate this point, whereas Chapter VI will analyse how the actor-oriented approach can become involved in standard development procedures as stipulated in the Cotonou Agreement and its Compendium.
Deconstruction
Appignanesi (1995: 78) focuses on the views of Derrida when explaining the gist of the deconstruction theory. Derrida has found that reason, as portrayed by the Western tradition of rationalist thought, has many flaws and will never be able to present the pure truth. His thinking militated against the ‘essentialist notion of certainty of meaning’.
(Appignanesi 1995: 79). Derrida further makes the point that the structures of meaning implicate the observers, which means that any action of observation is equal to interaction and therefore not detached. Rather, the structures of meaning are, as a concept, scientifically untenable. Therefore, it is suggested that anything reasoned cannot be universal, timeless or stable (Appignanesi 1995: 79-81). Meaning or identity can be compared to the image one has of oneself when looking at oneself in two opposing mirrors, the image of oneself is replicated infinitely. It can be traced back, if not in practice then theoretically, into the mists of time. Such a process of peeling back facts and images, just to reveal new facts and images, is deconstructive in nature. It entails the peeling away of meanings, one after the other, like when peeling an onion.
A critical view of development cooperation theories tends to reveal a specific and unique kind of reasoning which gives a single meaning to each separate development principle, each theory and each concept. The fact that the method of deconstruction could throw new light on the traditional meanings ingrained in the theories, concepts and principles encompassed in the development paradigm, makes the method worthwhile experimenting with, especially when researching ways to open up the largely unclaimed territory of people- oriented development. Some benefit has accrued from the introduction of the deconstruction theory to this study, for instance, because the reason why the concept of an actor-oriented approach was opened up into so many different layers, could be better understood. In essence, Chapter IV represents some form of deconstruction of the actor- oriented approach and its principles. For the same reasons, Long (1990: 3-24), found it logical to recommended deconstruction as an initial step to prepare the ground for an actor- oriented approach. In explaining his actor-oriented approach, Norman Long (1990: 3-24), maintains that, after having deconstructed applicable structures, one would be able to identify the actors, and Schuurman (1996: 26) elaborates further on this statement, as will be noted in the following paragraph.
Chapter I Background to the study
1.1. Introduction
1.2 A brief overview of this study
1.3 Background
1.4 Problem Statement
1.5 Objectives
1.6 Research methodology
Chapter II Basic definitions and terminology
2.1 Introduction 35
2.2 Postmodern thinking and procedures
2.3 Some terms of the actor-oriented approach
2.4 Various manifestations of knowledge
2.5 Civil society
2.6 Does “sustainability” convey the right meaning when applied to development cooperation?
2.7 Conclusion
Chapter III A broad overview of development theory
3.1 What is development?
3.2 Modernisation: an important factor in development theory
3.3 Development theory in historical perspective
3.4 Development theory since the early days of globalisation and liberalisation
3.5 Globalisation: a real factor in development theory
3.6 Developing a post-impasse development praxis
3.7 Conclusions
Chapter IV Bringing the actor-oriented approach into context
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Crucial actor-oriented concepts from a more practical viewpoint
Chapter V Multilateral development institutions with special reference to the Cotonou Agreement: a recent development agreement attuned to liberalisation and globalisation
5.1 Introduction
5.2 What else does the Cotonou Agreement provide for?
5.3 Practical application of private sector and civil society participation
5.4 Conclusions regarding the Cotonou Agreement
5.5 A complete discussion of the Compendium
5.6 Summary
Chapter VI Proposed guidelines for the implementation of an actor-oriented approach
6.1 Introduction
16.2 Theoretical guidelines for a practical actor-oriented approach, with special reference to the Cotonou Agreement and Compendium
6.3 Application of the actor-oriented approach
Chapter VII Findings and Conclusions
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Bringing objectives, findings and conclusions together
7.3 Final conclusions
7.4 The versatility of the actor-oriented approach
Bibliography
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
