After completing course readings for both this course and other courses dealing with development theory, it seems there is much debate about the use of the term “grassroots.” While it is certainly becoming a hip part of the development vernacular, one question I’ve been asking myself for quite a while is what truly qualifies as “grassroots” development?
To say that I came into Haiti with a “chip on my shoulder” about NGOs and their work is probably a vast understatement. Having just completed a fall course in Ecological Anthropology that dealt largely with failed development cases in indigenous communities, I felt as if I was drowning in a flood of moral and ethical questions that surrounded the nature of development. Was ALL development neocolonial? Inherently racist? Paternalistic? Which organizations were doing good work?
From an educational perspective, one thing that any student of Haiti can tell you is that it has long been known for its failed or corrupted development endeavors. There is a litany of reasons for this sad fact and while I didn’t understand it at the time, this is the reason that Ti Paul explained the idea of “small successes” in Haitian development. Upon further reflection, I believe that he meant that “small successes” must be the driving force behind Haitian development because of the rigid political and economic structures in place in Haiti—a country which is controlled by a minority elite that systematically exploit the rural population. For this reason, it seems that the best endeavors in bypassing those rigid structures are the so-called “grassroots” organizations that work on the community level. Qualifying these groups can be dangerous however as certainly “grassroots” is only a word and can be exploited as part of a dynamic donor friendly vocabulary. That is to say, “grassroots” the buzzword and “grassroots” the development practice ought to be separated. This is challenging but can be understood in the “Two Ears of Corn” approach advocated by Roland Bunch. Intrigued? Let me explain….
Ralph Bunch’s “People-Centered Agricultural Development” technique (which he outlines in his book “Two Ears of Corn”) focuses on participatory development and increasing agricultural yields through a series of adaptable core principals. The basics of these principals are 1) to teach farmers to experiment with new technologies on a small scale, 2) use rapidly viewed success to motivate farmers to continue innovation, 3) use technologies that use local and inexpensive resources, 4) begin by using a small number of technologies and finally 5) train local leaders as extensionists and support teach other farmers, thus spreading the technology. Bunch’s approach is predicated on the idea that many large NGOs don’t often work on a people to people or farmer to farmer level. Additionally, he cites many of the techniques being used in development practices are those being exported from industrial countries and were developed after those nations were economically advanced. Thus the technology in use is not appropriate for farmers in developing nations that lack the resources of farmers in the developed world.
Having taken this class and spent a significant amount of time with the SOIL/SOL staff, it seems to me that though SOIL does not work with agricultural development, the organization was born out of very similar ideals. Taking those ideals and incorporating community needs, SOIL has adjusted and sharpened itself to a very effective and nimble point. Their “all people are people” ethos is evident in every aspect of both work and social relationships. It’s evident in Sasha and Sarah hugging each one of us as we stepped out of the airport and it’s also evident in every aspect of the very important work that SOIL does.
No comments:
Post a Comment