Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Hanna Nieber
(Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology)
Susann Ludwig (University of Leipzig)
James Merron (University of Basel)
Send message to Convenors
- Format:
- Panel
- Streams:
- Sociology (x) Decoloniality & Knowledge Production (y)
- Location:
- Philosophikum, S54
- Sessions:
- Friday 2 June, -
Time zone: Europe/Berlin
Short Abstract:
In this panel, we are suspicious about the nature of knowledge concerning development. How do we allow ourselves to be curious with and captured by the interests of our colleagues? How can we think collectively about development differently? And how, in general, do we develop collective thinking?
Long Abstract:
From our long-term friendships with astronomers and engineers in Africa, we have learned that development is of great interest to them. However, we, scholars from Europe, trained in African studies, hesitated to engage, because the current conceptualization of development follows an ethically problematic colonial logic of taking Europe as the blueprint of how to think about Africa. Its terms are already familiar to us, mapping the future of those in need of development onto the past of those who have presumably achieved development. As African Studies scholars, we dismiss this epistemological teleology inherent in "development" and seek ways to think futures in light of historical contingencies. Taking these concerns seriously, engaging with development becomes epistemologically and ethically impossible and radical silence (Macamo 2019) the only appropriate option, however, not a satisfying one. We cannot not engage; a humble epistemology is not based on the dismissal of an idea, which is meaningful to the individuals we engage with.
In this panel, we are suspicious about the nature of the knowledge concerning development. How can we allow ourselves to be "curious with" and "captured by" (Swanson 2020) the interests of our colleagues, namely, their interest in development? How can we think differently about development? And how do we develop collective thinking in the first place? In order to address these questions, we invite contributions that deal with development knowledge through empirical case studies.
Accepted papers:
Session 1 Friday 2 June, 2023, -Jill Blau (Adventist University Friedensau)
Paper short abstract:
This paper deals with the perspective on development from local development / humanitarian workers from the Liptako-Gorma- region in Niger.
Paper long abstract:
In the face of the ongoing uncertainty within the Sahel, international development and humanitarian actors face a lot of challenges in terms of the design and implementation of their work. Many actors decide to withdraw from the most conflicting regions, as acting and monitoring of projects and interventions becomes too challenging. Others, however, continue while giving more and more leverage to local development actors. This paper reflects on the experience of and reflection on development/ humanitarian work from the perspective of local development staff from the Liptako-Gorma Region; providing insights into challenges, work experiences and reflections of the sense- and senselessness of development in a context of uncertainty. For this panel, I will be connecting the empirical case to broader questions on knowledge on development.
Dieter Neubert (University of Bayreuth)
Paper short abstract:
The notion of development is criticised as an expression of Western modernity and dominance. People’s visions of the future often resemble development goals. How do we deal with this contradiction? At intellectual level there might be perfect solutions, in practise there is just ‘muddling through’.
Paper long abstract:
In the intellectual debate, the notion of development is attacked from post-development and post-colonial critiques. Both positions blame Western modernity with its capitalism and reject Western economic, political and cultural dominance and the epistemic violence of modern science. Once we leave the ivory tower and ask for people’s visions of the future, we are confronted with mundane hopes for a good life. It is often about an improvement of livelihood including the ‘basic needs’ that are part of the development industry discourse but also about access to consumer goods. Looking at those who just escaped poverty, the so-called “middle classes”, we observe that they invest in consumer goods, education or in a business in the capitalist economy. Often people also claim freedom, democracy and a just society.
How do we deal with the contradiction between the well-founded intellectual critique of “development” and people’s everyday life desires? Shall we just leave it to the people? However, “the people” are not a homogenous collective but marked by all elements intersectional inequality including socio-economic, gender, political power, race/ethnicity etc. Not thinking about “development” leaves all changes in the hands of the most powerful. Even when we think we intervene at the right side and support the “poor”, we still face the challenge of unintended consequences. Thinking about development means accepting ambiguity, accepting limits of knowledge and of predictability. At intellectual level there might be perfect solutions, in practise there is often not more but even not less than “muddling through”.
Emmanuel Ampomah (Human Sciences Research Council) Sindi-Leigh McBride (University of Basel)
Paper short abstract:
We present on the African Youth Livelihoods Knowledge Hub as a community of joint responsibility that demonstrates the potential of creative, shared vision outside of the binary thinking that characterises conventional development discourse.
Paper long abstract:
The description of this panel hinted at one problem with “development knowledge”: its inherently colonial logic takes Europe as the blueprint that societies should strive to reproduce through “development”. Another problem is that “development” often turns political problems into technical problems, proposing that “under-development” can be solved through expert knowledge rather than a politics of redistribution.
This kind of binary thinking (insiders versus outsiders; technical versus political problems) can partly be resolved though the creation of communities of joint responsibility. We describe one that tackled the issue of African youth livelihoods through the creation of a virtual knowledge hub, an online space where materials like webinars, book reviews, art, podcasts and links to other websites were curated in order to produce a publicly accessible repository on this topic. Project participants included staff at the Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa (HSRC), eight young African research fellows employed for two years by the HSRC, invited guests and the project funder, namely the Mastercard Foundation.
A range of values, visions and ideological orientations emerged through participants’ ideas about the form that the knowledge hub should take and the materials it should include. Despite the existence of insiders and outsiders and different beliefs regarding how the issue of African youth livelihoods should be addressed- either through technical solutions, politics or some combination- we believe that this community of joint responsibility was, to some degree, able to develop a creative, shared vision and offer useful ways to think about this issue.
Sara de Simone (Università degli Studi di Trento)
Paper short abstract:
This paper aims to investigate the role of Ethiopian scientists in processes of knowledge production, decision-making and legitimacy creation around the construction of dams, bringing an expert bottom-up perspective to the debate around the environment-development nexus.
Paper long abstract:
African dams figured prominently among the development projects supported by post-colonial governments and international donors since the 1960s. They have been looked at as providers of renewable energy as well as tools for mitigating the impact of extreme weather events; they have been criticized for their social and environmental impact and investigated from a geopolitical perspective to assess their impact on regional and global power balances. Historically, dams have provided a concrete example of the tension between environment protection and economic growth, figuring prominently in the environment-development nexus. While being part of development strategies that each government formulates, their actual construction largely depends upon the access to international finance and on knowledge about the available technologies and impacts, which is often produced by international consultants and experts.
To what extent do local scientific communities contribute to the process of dam construction? To what extent are they involved in knowledge production, decision-making and legitimacy creation in their own country? To what extent are they called to reflect on the implications, and possible coping strategies, of the construction of dams on the environment-development nexus?
Building on fieldwork that will be conducted in February and March 2023, this paper aims to contribute to the debate around development knowledge by encouraging a closer engagement with local scientific and technical experts’ communities in Ethiopia, one of the most active African countries in harnessing its water resources thorough a widespread – and still growing – system of large - and sometimes highly contested – dams.