This summer I attended several academic conferences, and while I was initially extremely enthusiastic to be given the chance to put my work out for discussion, exchange with and learn from colleagues, by early autumn I am fatigued and disenchanted.
Maybe the reason for this is that several of these events where claiming to be “rethinking development”, yet by the end I fail to recognize what was essentially new in the arguments exchanged and the discussions led and what will move us forward.[1]
The root of my discontent is that while everyone continuously debated “development” and attempted to “rethink” it, not once it was clarified what the (minimum) common denominator of the “development” to be rethought would be. Were we talking about intervention, projects, stakeholders, cooperation? Were we rethinking technical modes of intervention? Ways of studying or researching? Or were we questioning the roots of persistent inequalities, the sources of poverty and the causes of injustices (e.g. the legacy of colonialism, global capitalism and our imperial mode of living)?
What we need to do is to stop for a moment and reconsider. The term (and its practice) is value-laden and shaped by (post-)colonial power relations, Western narratives of progress and their entanglements with (white) idea(l)s of modernity and civilization. Its usage appears to produce more misunderstandings than solutions. At the same time as we acknowledge how diverse realities are, we adhere to a fuzzy dichotomous concept for defining and framing the subjects and objects of research and debate. As Ziai (2016) controversially poses: Why are we not talking about global social policy or global inequalities, (in-)justice and solidarity instead of adhering to a concept we recognize as flawed? By terming precisely what is meant we were much better able to dissect social, political, economic and environmental dimensions of global inequalities and analyse origins of disparities and their continuations.
And we could stop rethinking and start acting.
[1] A rare exception being Maria Eriksson Baaz’ poignant key note speech at the Exceed/DIE Conference in Bonn (18 -19 September 2018) asking “Rethinking, How?”. We much appreciate that she is sharing her presentation slides here .
Julia Schöneberg is a research fellow in the Department for Development and Postcolonial Studies at the University of Kassel, Germany. @J_Schoeneberg.
This piece was originally published on Convivial Thinking. Photo: depone.
Developing Economics 
I think you make a really good point here. I often ask myself whether its just lethargy of scientific approaches or still power dynamics especially from governmental organizations that are completely fine with the idea of being “more developed” or at “the higher end of the path” to have a legitimation for their way of working and interfere in other countries.
LikeLike
Its remarkable that Dr Julia Schöneberg points a very critical question, often forgotten in development studies. Perhaps a way to study it can be to enlarge the possibilities to help more than actually Southern scholars (researchers and thinkers) to be worldly listen and read, by publishing (when promised previously) their works and thinkings. Adding to that, we can rethink seriously the major ways used until know (webinars, etc) to share with those southern scholars. We have to do all to let them sharing their works and ideas on the development policies and practices in their home countries (physical southern researchers participations in meetings, visas facilities, fundings, scholarships, publications, etc).
Pr Nadji Khaoua,
Annaba University, Economics department, Algeria.
pr.nadjikh@gmail.com
LikeLike