4, 2002
Copyright © 2002 by the Society for Applied Anthropology
0018-7259/02/040299-15$2.00/1
This is the power of development: the power to academic anthropology and development anthropology, in
transform old worlds, the power to imagine new which the former views the latter as second-rate, both intel-
ones. lectually and morally (Gow 1993), and the latter views the
Jonathan Crush, 1995:2 former as irrelevant, both theoretically and politically (Little
and Painter 1995), has been characterized as an ongoing fam-
Development is the management of a promise— ily dispute (Ferguson 1997). Given that this debate has been
and what if the promise does not deliver? going on for 50 years or so, at least since the time of Cornell
Jan Nederveen Pieterse, 2000:176 University’s Vicos Project in Peru in the 1950s, if not before,
one can conclude that this inherent tension may have become
Why should we follow the local ideas, rather an integral characteristic of the relationship (Doughty 1986).
than the best ideas we can find? But anthropology as discipline and profession is home to an
Martha Nussbaum, 2000:49 increasingly complicated relationship among academic an-
thropologists who do not undertake applied work, academic
Anthropology and Development anthropologists who do, and practicing anthropologists who
have no direct relationship with the academy. In practice,
T
he anthropological engagement with development then, this strained relationship may spread its net quite
continues to be contested, contentious, and criti- broadly, pitting academic against academic and academic
cized—but more from the anthropological than the against practioner (Nolan 2002). To state that these differ-
developmental side, a process that has increasingly assumed ences may have faded, as least in the United States, while
an air of permanence, perhaps exacerbated by the growing debates over postmodern issues of discourse, agency, author-
number of anthropologists directly or indirectly involved in ity, and reflexivity continue to resonate elsewhere—implying
development. The strained relationship that exists between that these issues have little or nothing to contribute to the
debate—is to run the risk of blinkering, hobbling, perhaps
maiming anthropology’s engagement with development, both
David Gow is the Baker Professor of Anthropology and International within and outside the academy (Horowitz 1998a). There has
Affairs at George Washington University, where he directs the master’s been a tendency for those more applied to cavalierly ignore
program in international development studies. The research for this concepts that are prefixed with “post”: postdevelopment,
article was supported by grants from the Wenner-Gren Foundation for postmodernism, and poststructuralism.
Anthropological Research and the Elliott School of International Af-
This dispute within the academy involves both intimacy
fairs at George Washington University. The author would like to ac-
knowledge the thoughtful and provoking insights offered by two anony- and resentment, as well as a certain element of inevitability:
mous reviewers on an earlier draft of this article. In addition, he would the livelihoods of those in the academy depend upon the in-
also like to thank his graduate students in development studies, whose tensive study of those whom development anthropology
moral intelligence provided inspiration for this article. would change forever. Not for nothing has the academy
With its emphasis on personal responsibility and equity, It [the concept of civil society] reflects a multiplicity of
the work of Chambers is imbued with a high moral serious- diverse and often diverging voices that share a wish to
ness, despite his disclaimer that this model is empirical and preserve a concern for a common humanity, undo the nega-
tive aspects of capitalist development, and promote forms
inductive. For better or worse, Chambers is making the case of economic organization that are environmentally sus-
for personal conversion as the basis for development, a quasi- tainable and socially just.
religious experience (Henkel and Stirrat 2001). For this rea-
son, the values he stresses relate much more to the work of To a certain extent, both development anthropology and
“moral” economists, such as Amartya Sen (1999), and moral development ethics, as well as human rights, have tended to
philosophers, such as Martha Nussbaum (2000), and those focus on the individual—on the one hand outlining the re-
who write about development ethics, authors such as David sponsibilities and obligations of the state (or its surrogates)
Crocker (1991) and Mozzafar Qizilbash (1996), than they toward the individual, and on the other attempting to list the
do to those who usually write about development. What he is necessary capabilities that will contribute toward the achieve-
writing about and what he is arguing for is the creation of a ment of human flourishing. Development ethics refers to “the
“just society,” both “here” and “there,” since the responsi- normative or ethical assessment of the ends and means of
bilities of northerners to “distant strangers” can only be met Third World and global development” (Crocker 1991:457).
by starting here, rather than there (Ignatieff 2001b). This definition, in turn, gives rise to two major questions:
3
This latter responds to calls from Kottak (1999) and Scudder (1999) References Cited
to address more global problems and the linkages between them, both
vertical and horizontal. Baba, Marietta
2000 Theories of Practice in Anthropology: A Critical Appraisal.
4
Relying solely on development texts, in addition to the critiques of In The Unity of Theory and Practice in Anthropology: Rebuilding
Escobar, Crush, and Ferguson, also raises serious methodological and a Fractured Synthesis. Carole E. Hill and Marietta L. Baba, eds.
epistemological problems. Even in a situation where there is a demon- Pp. 17-44. Washington, D.C.: National Association for the
strated utilization of anthropological knowledge on one hand, and Practice of Anthropology (NAPA) Bulletin 18.