THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The origins of the modern field of
development can be traced to the set of circumstances associated with the
collapse of colonial systems and the emergence of new nation states following
World War II. The first development programs and strategies were directly
influenced by the model of successful European reconstruction carried out under
the Marshall Plan.
This model propounded a modernization path which almost
exclusively focused on industrialization. The basic thrust of this policy was
to seek maximum growth in the economies of developing countries, which, it was
believed, would generate sufficient wealth and employment to gradually involve
the majority of their populations in productive activity. Capital accumulation,
the transfer of technology and related know-how, the introduction of modern
methods of administration, and the significant injection of foreign aid were
the principal elements of an approach designed to bring the benefits of
modernity to the world’s masses.
Although well-intentioned, this
modernization paradigm proved in many respects disastrous. In its attempt to
unlock the potential of the developing world the industrialization process
resulted in large migrations from rural to urban areas and a concomitant breakdown
in social cohesion. Such migration was not unintended as it was deemed a
necessary and even desirable way to accelerate economic growth. Implicit in
this development approach was the view that a majority of the inhabitants of
rural regions led unproductive lives that needed to be redirected. Its overall
conception revealed the erroneous and paternalistic perceptions of development
planners.
As the inefficacy of the strategies
employed to achieve ambitious growth objectives became increasingly evident,
the focus of attention turned, during the decade of the sixties, to cultural,
demographic, and technological questions. While economic growth continued to be
the overarching aim considerable resources were allocated to the exploration of
ways to overcome obstacles in its path. Programs concerned with health and
education, and concerted efforts to modernize agricultural methods through the
Green Revolution, are often cited as the most notable successes of this period.
An underlying assumption of these programs was that rural populations were
indeed resourceful and lacked only the proper tools. In short, if the
technological base of these peoples could be advanced, economic prosperity
would surely follow.
EDUCATION
Because social advancement springs
from the creation and dissemination of knowledge, a salient feature of
development strategy oer the past decades has been education. Initially, a
focus on physical infrastructure evolved to include matters related to
curriculum, administration, pedagogical training, educational technology, and
the relationship between schools and their surrounding communities. Yet despite
notable achievements, especially in providing primary education on a universal
basis, educational methodologies are, in the main, falling short of releasing
in a cumulative educational experience which does not allow students to see the
essential relationships between different areas of human inquiry and social
reality. This fragmentation is exacerbated by the emphasis placed on the absorption
of facts rather than on the understanding of important concepts and processes.
Moreover, issues relating to individual purpose and morality are rarely
incorporated.
The existing situation calls for a
fresh look at the entire corpus of human knowledge and how it can be studied
and extended in a holistic fashion. Education should strive to develop an
integrated set of capabilities- technical, artistic, social, moral and
spiritual-so that individuals can lead lives with meaning and become agents of
positive social change. It is in creating curricula and methodologies that
foster such interrelated capabilities that will require a partnership between
science and religion.
ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AND ORGANIZATION
Central to the task of
reconceptualizing the organization of human affairs is arriving at a proper
understanding of the role of economic activity. The economic disequilibrium and
inequity now so widespread in the world directly result from the failure to
place economic questions into the broader context of humanity’s social and
spiritual existence. Economic arrangements should serve people’s needs;
societies should not be expected to shape themselves to fit specific economic
models- particularly those that embrace habits of unbridled acquisition and
consumption.
Creating ecologically sustainable
patterns of economic activity that extend from the local to the global level
will require a fundamental reorientation of both the principles and
institutional arrangements that govern production and consumption. Approaches
for encouraging the creation and distribution of wealth in rural micro regions
and policies that prevent the processes of globalization from marginalizing
grassroots economic initiatives deserve particular attention from researchers.
Ultimately, society must develop new economic models shaped by insights that
arise from a sympathetic understanding of shared experience, from viewing human
beings in relation one to another, and from a recognition of the central role
that family and community play in social and spiritual well-being. Resources
must be directed away from those activates and programs that are damaging to
the individual, communities and the environment, and directed toward those most
germane to creating a social order that cultivates the limitless potentialities
within human beings. Both science and religion thus have a key role to play in
developing economic systems that are strongly altruistic and cooperative in
nature.
CONCLUSION
It is generally accepted that the
materially poor must participate directly in efforts to improve their own
well-being. But the nature of that participation has yet to be fully explored.
It becomes more understandable if it is examined in the context of the role of
knowledge presented here. Participation must be substantive and creative; it
must allow the people themselves access to knowledge and encourage them to
apply it. Specifically, it is not sufficient for the world’s inhabitants to be
engaged in projects as mere beneficiaries of the products of knowledge, even if
they have a voice in certain decisions. They must be engaged in applying
knowledge to create well-being, thereby generating new knowledge and
contributing in a substantial and meaningful way to human progress. If, in
fact, a community controls the means of knowledge, and is guided by spiritual
principles, it will be able to develop material resources and technologies that
serve and match its real needs.
The ability of any group to
participate fully in its own development process depends on a wide range of
interrelated capacities at the personal and group level. Among the most
important are the capacities to take initiative in a creative and disciplined
manner; to think systematically in understanding problems and searching for
solutions; to use methods of decision-making that are non-adversarial and
inclusive; to deal efficiently and accurately with information rather than
respond unwittingly to political and commercial propaganda; to make appropriate
and informed technological choices and to develop the skills and commitment
necessary to the effective design and management of community projects; to put
place and to participate in educational processes conducive to personal growth
and life-long learning; to promote solidarity and unity of purpose, thought,
and action among all members of a community; to replace relationships based on
dominance and competition with relationship based on reciprocity,
collaboration, and service to others; to interact with other cultures in a way
that leads to the advancement of one’s own culture and not to its degradation;
to encourage recognition of the essential nobility of human beings; to maintain
high standards of physical, emotional and mental health; to imbue social
interaction with an acute sense of justice; and to manifest rectitude in
private and public demonstration.
Incomplete as it is, this list is
suggestive of the constellation of capacities necessary for building up the
social, economic, and moral fabric of collective life. The list highlights the
vital role of both scientific and religious resources in promoting development.
It alerts us to the range of values and attitudes that enhance key capacities,
as well as the concepts; information, skills, and methods to be employed in
their systematic development. It also underscores the importance of structured
learning in generating and sustaining an integrated set of social and economic
activities.
Hence, capacity building as proposed
here entails the enabling of the individual to manifest innate powers in a
creative and methodical way, the shaping of institutions to exercise authority
so that these powers are channeled towards the placement of the members of
society, and the development of the community so that it act as an environment
conducive to the release of individual potential and the enrichment of culture.
The challenge to all three is to learn to use material resources and
intellectual and spiritual endowments to advance civilization.
REFERENCES
R.
N. Bellah, “Religious Evolution,” American Sociological Review 29 (1964): 358-3-74
R.
N Bellah et al., Habits of the Heart
(Berkely: University of California
Press, 1985)
P.
Beyer, Religion and Globalization (London: Sage, 1994)
H.
Bloom, The American Religion (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992)
J.
Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society (Boston: Beacon,
1979)
N.
Luhmann, Religious Dogmatics and the Evolution of Societies (Lewiston, N. Y.:
Mellen, 1984)
T.
Parsons, The Evolution of Societies (Englewood Cliffs, N. J. Prentice
Hall, 1977)
J.
Peacock and A. T. Kirsch, The Human Direction (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall, 1973)
M.
Weber, The Sociology of Religion (Boston: Beacon, 1993(1920).