In Pathologies of Power: Health, Human Rights, and the New War on the Poor, Paul Farmer combines his experiences as a physician and anthropologist in the Third World to bring forth evidence and analysis of poverty. While primarily focused on health, and profiling the effects of Tuberculosis, AIDS and other diseases on particular locales, his experience in treating patients beaten by members of military dictatorships and those who experience malnourishment point to deeply social health problems. As he quickly demonstrates, military attacks on civilians and AIDS are equally socially determined problems. Continue reading
Esteva and Prakash’s Grassroots Postmodernism presents a powerful theoretical model for alternatives to development. In reading this accessible, yet deep survey into the competing ideologies of development and local people’s power, one is confronted with a text rife with aphorisms that challenge the sacred cows of global development. Continue reading
In “Anthropology and the Development Encounter,” Arturo Escobar discusses the past approaches of development anthropology as problematic. He focuses on the epistemology of development, the complicity of anthropologists in the modernization approach of development, and the Western worldview assumptions that pervade the discourse even among critics of development within the discipline. In this short response, I will focus my attention on the alternative episteme Escobar offers, particularly in his discussion of alternatives to development and indigenous resistance to the development process. I will then quickly profile Nash’s view of activist anthropology, and argue this methodology offers the applied anthropology of development an avenue to explore alternatives to development.
Globalism brings into the fold of an all-encompassing structure, an ever larger conglomeration of individuals and communities dependent upon maintaining the status quo, particularly of over-arching economic and political structures. Rather than responding to local social needs, or ecosystemic needs, the system of dependency globalism fosters – primarily through specialization of production and international trade of the objects of production – the prioritization of preserving the functionality of global structures. This essentially undermines the sovereignty of the local, and is contrary to ecology. As communities move further from self-sufficiency and self-reliance, and closer to a relationship of dependency to a global flow of goods and wealth, the community grows increasingly aligned with the status quo of the global structures over that of their own needs.
Below is the introduction to a 15,000 essay I just completed, summing up the theoretical and historical basis for my critique of UN environmental discourse, particularly the UNCED documents. This was completed for a graduate social theory course, and will be used in different sections of my thesis. I have only provided the first 3 of 61 pages here. People who wish to discuss these points more specifically may email me, and will send the entire document for further discussion.
When I was researching for my work on Agenda 21 and the UNCED, I found very little wholesale criticism in the academic press until I stumbled on this article, “Sustainable development and Agenda 21: the secular bible of global free markets and pluralist democracy” by Timothy Doyle, published in Third World Quarterly, Vol 19, No 4, pp 771-786, 1998.
This is the concluding and final text from this article:
With the emergence of global ecology, many environmental issues are seen as beyond the traditional scope of national governments. Governments are, more often than not, severely lagging behind in their responses, ‘and this transnational political space has been occupied by corporations and NGOS, which can cross nation-state boundaries more readily. This globalisation of ecological and market systems has led to “the politics of no-fixed address.” ‘* Jacques Attali, who served as the foundational head of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development looks into the near future, and sees the following:
Severed from any national allegiance or family ties by microchip-based gadgets that will enable individuals to carry out for themselves many of the functions of health, education, and security, the consumer-citizens of the world’s privileged regions will become “rich nomads.” Able to participate in the liberal market culture of political and economic choice, they will roam the planet seeking ways to use their free time, shopping for information, sensations, and goods only they can afford, while yearning for human fellowship, and the certitudes of home and community that no longer exist because their functions have become obsolete. Like New Yorkers who every day face homeless beggars who loiter around automated teller machines pleading for spare change, these wealthy wanderers will everywhere be confronted by roving masses of “poor nomads”-boat people on a planetary scale-seeking to escape from the destitute periphery, where most of the earth’s population will continue to live. These impoverished migrants will ply the planet, searching for sustenance and shelter, their desires inflamed by the ubiquitous and seductive images of consumerism they will see on satellite TV broadcasts from Paris, Los Angeles, or Tokyo. Desperately hoping to shift from what Alvin Toffler has called the slow world to the fast world, they will live the life of the living dead.**
This is the world of Agenda 21.
The only force which currently seems capable of moving beyond the boundaries of nation-states in hot pursuit of transnational corporations are social movements and NGOS, also acting through transnational conduits. At first glance, the age-old story depicting the battle between David and Goliath seems an appropriate metaphor to describe this situation. Only this time, David has no sling-shot.
*Doyle & McEachern, Environmental Politics, p. 105
** Attali, Millennium: Winners and Losers in the Coming World Order, 1991, pp 5-6