CHAPTER XIV
GLOBAL
ORDER, LOCAL CULTURES AND CIVIL SOCIETIES:
PRINCIPLES
FOR A NEW UNDERSTANDING OF DEVELOPMENT
HEINZ HOLLEY
INTRODUCTION
In
the present international debate "the new world order" is a catchword
constantly used in order to focus upon problems of global development. It is
doubtful, however, whether in using this expression people really intend to
reflect upon the challenges we face in the search for a mutually beneficial
global order. This would embrace the diverse priorities and goals of the civil
societies affected, and therefore assure community interest, acceptance and
participation. The recent past has shown a certain global trend to
democratization of political regimes, but in a real sense most of the new
democracies in Eastern Europe and the Third World "have preserved ossified
political and economic structures from an authoritarian past."1 With regard to the international political and
economic structures similarly most nations still depend on the decisions of a
minority (the U.N. Security Council and the "G7"). What we have now is
an "order" which is not so much based on global consensus, but almost
exclusively was decided upon by the first world. In this context, the prevailing
"World order" at large, ignores the interests of the vast majority of
the world’s inhabitants and their corresponding civil societies.
As
the South Commission 1990 reports:
Culturally
too the world is increasingly interlinked. The communication revolution is
steadily enlarging the access to information for the peoples of the South.
Statements are made in the North about the effect on patterns of living and
immigration from the South. But in the South cultural influences from the North
are much stronger, more pervasive, and in some aspects pernicious. They are
transmitted through the media--whose impact has been intensified by the spread
of television--through the advertising of consumer pro-ducts associated with
affluent life-styles, through education patterned on Northern models, and
through tourism.2
It is important to note,
that despite officially declared cooperated efforts to eliminate
underdevelopment, the actual relationship bet-ween developed countries as
metropolitan centers and developing countries as peripheries has been, and
continues to be, characterized by antagonistic economic and political interests.
This is underlined by, among other things, the growing gap with respect to a
multitude of social development indicators (e.g., GDP per capita, social
security, health care, education etc.) between the North and the South.
These
facts and trends suggest that the conventional develop-ment concepts have failed
to overcome the problems of under-development, and that new initiatives and new
approaches in the way of thinking might be necessary.3 This
paper intends to provide a rough account of past trends, to review the pros and
cons of the conventional development models and, on this basis, to propose
principles for a new understanding of development.
THE IMPACT OF
ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT
THEORIES ON THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF
LESS DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (LDCS):
AN OVERVIEW OF PAST TRENDS
In
past decades two schools of thought, based on modernizing theories, on the one
hand, and on theories on imperialism, on the other, have dominated the
understanding of development, both in theoretical discussions and in policy
decisions. To a certain extent this was an extension of the Cold War to debate
on academic and practical levels.4
Symptomatic
of development theories based on the "modern-ization concepts" is the
leading role of the North. Accordingly, the northern type of society, including
its economic structures and its social patterns, is regarded as the leading
maxim of any sustainable global development. In this context, global development
should be modelled on the development characteristics of the countries of the
North (seen as already developed), abstracting from the peculiar conditions of
the concerned society.
Furthermore,
modernization concepts fully internalize the causes of development. Thereby they
attribute the development of the countries of the North to more rationality,
efficiency, industriousness, creativity etc.; correlatively, the
underdevelopment of the countries of the South is attributed to the absence of
the above-mentioned factors. In this connection, non-northern type societies,
seen as both tradi-tional and underdeveloped, are regarded as constituting a
major cons-traint upon development efforts. Therefore, in order to foster
develop-ment traditional structures must be eliminated and preferably replaced
by the development-oriented ‘modern structures’ characteristic of the
northern type of societies. Through this process of transformation of
traditional societies into modern societies, development oriented
‘mo-dernized’ civil societies will emerge as well in the countries of the
South.
A
reknowned advocate of this concept is Daniel Lerner. He suggested that a broad
process of urbanization is the key to overcoming underdevelopment.5
In his understanding, in the homo-geneous social structure of the village people
are not confronted with a choice between different sensibilities or options;
their horizon is con-fined to the certainties of their traditions--other ways of
living make no sense to them. This constellation of life limits awareness of the
need for change. In contrast, the urban social structure, especially its he-terogeneous
nature, meets the requirements for development. Lerner was deeply convinced that
the underdeveloped countries will have to go the way of urbanization and
modernization which the European countries have already experienced.
A
major weakness in Lerner’s concept is the failure to observe the resultant
anomic situation of the process of development he suggested. This is underlined
by, among other things, the fact that urban centers in the Third World have
become metropolises of poverty, rather than centers for development.
In
1975, for example six out of the twelve largest cities in the world were
situated in the LDCs; in the year 2000 nine out of the twelve largest cities
will be situated there. The physical appearance of Third World urbanization is a
proliferation of vast shantytowns. The living conditions in most of these urban
areas are characterized by growing poverty, unemployment, malnutrition and other
social as well as infrastructural problems.6
Another
advocate of modernizing concepts, Samuel P. Huntington7
suggested that political modernization should be the key to overcoming
underdevelopment. He was convinced that, by des-troying systems of traditional
elites, it would be possible to introduce a modern political system which starts
and accelerates the process of development. Huntington has transferred the idea
of a civil society as it is understood in Western cultures to the developing
countries and pleaded for globalization of modernity, even by the assistance of
the army. Similarly and even stronger than Huntington, Lucian Pye8 underlined the importance of the army in the process of
modernization. In his understanding, in developing countries the army is the
only efficient modern organization which can teach people modern standards.
The
modernizing concepts of W. Rostow9 and Rodan Rosens-tein10 should be mentioned. For Rostow development was
seen as a linear process. He stressed the necessary "take off" point
in the development process which can be caused by technical or political
revolutions. Once "take off" has occurred, development runs without
outside assistance. Rodan Rosenstein argued similarly, suggesting that only if
the "big push", that is the transfer of capital and technology, is
great enough will the "trickle down effect" occur. By this, the
process of development will expand from the centers of modernization to the
whole country.
THE MYTH AND REALITY
OF THE DEVELOPMENT
OPPORTUNITIES OF THE POST COLD WAR ERA
The
breakdown of the Soviet Union and its satellite states in 1989 saw the end of a
world divided into two ideologically competing blocks, and ushered in the new
era of global order. This new era was associated with high expectations and the
hope for worldwide development, leading to the improvement of national welfare,
a re-duction of international tensions and the creation of the necessary
conditions for lasting stability and peace. The end of the totalitarian power
structures was passionately acclaimed. Many groups, including political
scientists and entrepreneurs, expected the worldwide dif-fusion of the
capitalist system. Francis Fukujama interpreted the breakdown of communism as
"the end of history".11 Based on a super-ficial interpretation of Hegel’s Philosophy of
History, Fukujama saw in capitalism the only sustainable socio-economic
system, a fact which in his eyes was accentuated by the collapse of Marxism as
the last major competing system.
Many
theorists, policy makers as well as entrepreneurs, shared these views. They
based their standpoints on the fact that in the his-torical struggle among
socio-economic systems capitalism appears to be the ultimate winner.
CIVIL SOCIETY AS A
BASE OF COMMUNITY INTEREST,
ACCEPTANCE AND PARTICIPATION
In
the understanding of Hegel, civil society is the space of social life where we
can express our individuality and satisfy our needs for income, work, culture
and pleasure.12
There is a certain truth in this definition. But Hegel’s understanding of the
civil society is very individualistic; obviously it is rooted in his European
experience which is excessively individualistic. If a civil society is based
only on indi-vidualist and materialist orientations then it can be foreseen that
such a society tends to social anomie or as Johan Galtung noted, social atomism
leading directly to social disintegration. In his paper (UNRISD Discussion
paper, Nr. 61) delivered at the closing session of the international conference
on "Rethinking Social Development", Kopen-hagen, March 11-12, 1995, he
stressed that: "We are in a stage in human history where the problem is not
only whether interaction struc-tures between individuals, groups and countries
is right or wrong, but whether there is any structure at all; and not only
whether the culture defining right or wrong is right or wrong, but whether there
is any nor-mative culture at all."13
Galtung,
too, sees the civil society as to some extent posited against the state and
against economy. He thinks that there is a contract between the civil society
and the state, but no contract with capital (economy) and the mass media. In
this context, in modern societies new priesthoods emerge as carriers of the new
faiths: " jurists for the state, economists for Capital, journalists for
the media, political ideologists for civil society and nationalists for the
nations."
INTERNAL AND GLOBAL
INFLUENCES ON COMMUNITY
INTEREST, ACCEPTANCE AND PARTICIPATION
Kant
had developed a theory of international relations based upon his view of history
and the nature of mankind. He represents the view that domestic and
international politics are intimately interlinked: the international political
problems of states cannot be resolved until their external relations are
properly in order. In his essay "Idea for a Universal History,"14
Kant considered that the problem of establishing a civil constitution was
subordinate to the problem of a law-governed external relationship with other
states, and that it could not be solved unless the latter also is solved. He
underlines the fact that human beings suffer from an
"unsociable-sociability" because they both need and dislike the
company of others. Human beings are both competitive and cooperative at the same
time. Paradoxically, our competitiveness can force us into greater sociability
with others. In that context Kant believes that through their very horror and
cruelty wars may convince citizens of the advantages of living in peace with one
another. Wars also lead to a need to regulate relations among states.15 To
these considerations of Kant, today we must add global ecological and
environmental problems which are challenging societies all around the globe.
In
the past there was a strong debate among scientists about the reasons for
underdevelopment. For supporters of modernizing con-cepts, underdevelopment was
caused by internal factors of a par-ticular society. Only by eliminating such
internal factors will it be possible to achieve development. On the contrary, in
Marxist ap-proaches--theories of imperialism and concepts of the
"Dependency"--underdevelopment was understood as a result of
dependence on (capitalist) industrialized countries of the North. In these
concepts, underdevelopment was caused only by external factors like the history
of colonization, the terms of trade, exploitation by multinational com-panies,
etc. In the current debate over development, there is a clear trend among
researchers to avoid one-sided attempts at explaining underdevelopment. Internal
as well as external factors, and a certain constellation of both, contribute to
development barriers in particular societies.16
As
a lesson from the past we must also underline the experience that such one-sided
concepts often affected social life in developing countries. In certain cases,
community interests were hurt from out-side; in other cases participation in
political life or enjoyment of the surplus of an economy was not possible due to
internal causes. Development plans--even good ones--which were imposed from
outside or by elites within the country failed due to their failure to win
acceptance.
OUTLOOK FOR A NEW
UNDERSTANDING OF DEVELOPMENT
Finally,
a few principles for a new understanding of develop-ment:
- A
new understanding of the notion of development: In the past the notion of
development included that its goal is to reach the type of a society and economy
already achieved in the industrialized countries in the North. But development
should mean also that some-thing or someone already existing should be protected
and enabled in their existence.
- A
common search for better social development is a challenge not only for the
developing countries, but also for those which are rich and industrialized.
Environmental scientists have already calculated that should the development
system of the industrialized countries be taken as a model for the whole world
it would lead to the ecological collapse of the planet.
-
Holistic systemic and interdisciplinary approaches, rather than isolated views
within a science or a policy, are very important for such a new approach. It is
necessary to overcome the dilemma of highly specialized sciences, caused by the
juxtaposition of humanities and natural sciences, each working within its own
notions and connotations. Each develops its own dynamic and each is subject to
the need to legitimize its own scientific work by producing the results expected
by its distinctive set of specialists. We have to face the problem that each of
us can be right within our own rationality, but together do wrong.
-
Development goals have to be seen as interlinked in their broader context.
Economic growth is for many developing countries an important goal. But if a
policy of economic growth is implemented without considering such other factors
as job creation, distribution of incomes, cultural issues, etc., such a policy
is more liable to destroy than to develop. Developing a democratic constitution
merely in order to follow the structural adjustment regulations of the World
Bank is not enough to realize democracy. Real democracy needs democrats, men and
women who are willing, but who also are allowed, to participate in public
matters. Democracy is guaranteed not only by a constitution, but also by the
activities of the people within the civil society.
-
Culture is the basis of any development; destroying cultures leads to resistance
against change from outside. The culture of mo-dernity should be open to
mankind, but not invade or conquer other cultures.17 If certain aspects of development are not
accepted, this leads to their rejection and even hostility. Probably some
fundament-alist movements have deep roots in this conflict, characterized by a
Malaysian sociologist as being between MacDonalds and jihad. The Canadian
philosopher Charles Taylor18
underlined this problem when he spoke of the malaise of modernity.
-
Good global development and good regional or national deve-lopment are not
contradictory; it is a goal which can be achieved. In order to reach this it
will be necessary to erect a real world order, that is, one which represents the
interests not only of the First World, but of the world as a whole.
The
turn toward liberal democracy and the search for individual freedom have been
accompanied by a worldwide shift in favor of market forces and private
enterprise in the management and orga-nization of the economy. Many believe that
history already has come to an end and that the realm of freedom as understood
in the West is on its way to becoming the model for the whole world. Instead of
such an enthusiastic interpretation of contemporary history probably a much more
modest and realistic approach should be recommended in order to achieve and
secure freedom as a value for individuals, as-sociations and communities within
the society, the state and its relations to other states and to the
international community as a whole.
It
must be remembered that freedom can be sought for a number of reasons which have
little to do with political participation, tolerance or human dignity. The
capitalist model is characterized also by the fact that a great many people are,
for example, currently en-gaged in a search for the freedom to make money or to
define personal lifestyles. But extreme individualism can be associated with
intolerance and disrespect for the rights of others. In Western societies such
an increase of extreme individualism and a decline of patterns of solidarity was
observable especially during the last decade. In many developing countries
overall solidarity within the civil society is intact still. Some day the First
World may ask the present Third World for advice on social development in the
North. When this happens, the world will have taken a major step forward.
Institut für
Soziologie
Johannes Lepler
Universität Linz
NOTES
1.
B. Gills, J. Rocmora and R. Wilson, Low Intensity Democracy. Political Power
in the New World Order (London: Pluto Press, 1993), p. 3.
2.
South Commission, The Challenge to the South. The Report of the South
Commission (New York: Oxford University Press), p. 6.
3.
See also: D. Nohlen and F. Nuscheler, eds., Handbuch der Dritten Welt.
Grundprobleme, Theorien, Strategien (Bonn: J. H. W. Dietz Nachf., 1992),
Band 1.
4.
Compare P.L. Berger, Welt der Reichen, Welt der Armen. Politische Ethik und
sozialer Wandel (München: List, 1976).
5.
D. Lerner, The Passing of Traditional Society. Modernizing the Middle East
(New York, 1958).
6.
E. Dostal, "Perspektiven der zukünftigen Entwicklung Südafrikas", in
Holley H./K. Zapotoczky, Hoffnung am Kap. Chancen und Gefahren des
Transformations-prozesses in Südafrika (Linz: Linzer Schriftenreihe für
Entwicklungszusammenarbeit, 1995), pp. 71-75.
7.
S.P. Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies (New Haven, 1968).
8.
L.W. Pye, Aspects of Political Development (Boston, 1966).
9.
W.W. Rostow, The Stages of Economic Growth (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1966).
10.
P.N. Rosenstein-Rodan, "Notes on the Theories of the Big Push", M.I.T.,
CIS, March, 1957.
11.
F. Fukujama, The End of History. The Last Man (New York: 1992).
12.
Compare H. Williams, International Relations in Political Theory
(Philadelphia: Open University Press, 1992), pp. 92-102.
13.
J. Galtung, "On the Social Costs of Modernization. Social Disintegration,
Atomie/Anomie and Social Development", in UNRISD Discussion paper Nr. 61,
(Geneva 1995).
14.
H. Reiss, ed., Kant’s Political Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1977).
15.
See also H. Williams, "International Relations in Political Theory"
(Philadelphia: Open University Press, 1992), pp. 80, 90.
16.
A. Boeckh, "Entwicklungstheorien: eine Rückschau", in D. Nohlen, F.
Nuscheler, pp. 111, 130.
17.
H. Holley, "Zum Scheitern der Entwicklungskonzepte: Zwischen bedenkenlosem
Pragmatismus und gedankenträchtigen Ideologien", in Klaus Zapotoczky and
Hildegard Griebl, eds., Die Welt im Umbruch. fremde Wirklichkeiten als
gesellschaftliche Herausforderung (Frankfurt/Wien: Brandes & Apsel/Südwind,
1994), pp. 200, 211; und H. Holley, "Vom Ende der Geschichte zum
Fundamentalismus der Moderne. Eine kritische Reflexion zur Renaissance der
Modernisierungskonzepte." in K. Zapotoczky and H. Griebl, Kulturverständnis
und Entwicklungschance (Frankfurt/Wien: Brandes & Apsel/Südwind, 1995).
18.
Charles Taylor, The Malaise of Modernity" (Ontario: Concord, 1991).
DISCUSSION
1.
The sense of development is itself under development. In the modern period the
search for clear and distinct ideas pursued a single theory. The reductionist
influence of the demand for clarity culminated essentially in the Cold War which
manifested that reductionism leads to two poles each providing the foundation
for a different theory. In this context, unity in principle is not realizable.
It is possible, however, to achieve some consensus on the concept of development
especially if one is freed from the above reductionism and analyses the dynamism
of world transformation in terms of time, place and its other dimension.
In
doing this one finds that at least, at a surface level the media are now widely
diffused and bring to peoples imaginations ways of life and levels of
consumption far beyond any conceivable means for their local realization or the
possiblities of the world to sustain if they were to become widespread.
Thus
it is necessary to develop a reflexive understanding of one’s own condition in
order for a people to protect itself from being taken over by others. This
reflexion must be not merely in terms of in-dividuals, but of peoples as a whole
in the sense of a collective cons-ciousness. There are possibilities for this in
the heritages of most peoples. These have been intentionally depreciated by
modernizing development theories of a Northern and Western individualist mode
which have focused only upon the benefits of individualization without taking
into account the essential social dimension of the human person. This reflects
the relation of protestantism to capitalism elabo-rated by Weber and at the root
of one of the modern reductivist ideologies.
In
the post Cold War it is now possible to recognize that the world divides not
only between an individualist North and a collectivist South, but that
development itself has two different modes in North America and Europe, on the
one hand, and in Japan, on the other. This points to the importance of the
culture of a people as their prime re-source for development.
2.
A similar conclusion is reached by another like of argumentation. If one
recognizes that the proper resource for develop-ment is in the culture of a
people, then a second reflective step is that the contribution of a culture lies
not so much in its particularities or dif-ferences, but in the moral authority
it provides for the effective interior direction of a people’s activity.
It
should be noted that this differs essentially from an authoritative imposition
from without, e.g., by the state vis-à-vis its people or by an international
body vis-à-vis different nations. This allows it to take account of different
places and times, to learn from one’s experience in these circumstances, and
perhaps even more to allow for different answers which express the freedom and
creativity of the many peoples as they build their own lives, rather than being
manipulated by others. This places a primacy not on global uniform-ization, but
upon development in which people are not objects but par-ticipants. For this it
may be important to adjust boundaries and groupings which were imposed from
without and often for such un-worthy reasons as the political domination and the
economic ex-ploitation of peoples.
3.
In this it is important then not to remain merely at the economic or political
level, but to go more deeply to the metaphysical level to take account of human
beings as persons and the harmonious quality of their life together. In order to
do this it is important to reintegrate the dimensions of life which were
dissociated in the reductionist modern search for restricted goals. Thus, the
new notes of the post modern search are for reintegrating the previously
dis-sociated interests in polities, art, economy, etc., each of which might be
clear in its own terms but which did not cohere as a whole. To do so requires
not a human and hence limited goal, but an infinitely open divine union of
power, wisdom and love. In this light development can be seen not as some
artificial and destructive exploitation of man or nature, but a deepening of the
being of both and a harmonious conjunction one with the other.