If you order your cheap custom essays from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on DEVELOPMENT MODELS: DEPENDENCY MODEL VERSUS PARTICIPATORY MODEL. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality DEVELOPMENT MODELS: DEPENDENCY MODEL VERSUS PARTICIPATORY MODEL paper right on time. Out staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in DEVELOPMENT MODELS: DEPENDENCY MODEL VERSUS PARTICIPATORY MODEL, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your DEVELOPMENT MODELS: DEPENDENCY MODEL VERSUS PARTICIPATORY MODEL paper at affordable prices with !
DEVELOPMENT MODELS DEPENDENCY VERSUS PARTICIPATORY WHICH ONE ARE WE ADVOCATING IN PRINCIPLE AND PRACTICE?
- A.K.NONGKYNRIH
The word ‘development’ could be interpreted in so many ways. It means different things to different people. Political systems across nations defined development on the basis of their political ideology and development experts have been articulating from different perspectives. The debates are continuing and remain unresolved. At this juncture we will not extend this discussion less we may shift from the original perspective which the paper tries to focus. The intention of the paper is not to describe the definition and its pending debates but in highlighting developmental approaches adopted by the ‘state’, institutions and organizations. The broad objective is poverty reduction and modernization of human societies (especially for the developing and less developed countries). In the recent past we observed serious debates both academically and politically in different forums on the rise of poverty. The cause of the debates is because poverty reduction programmes have been planned and implemented with huge investment by the ‘state’ and its resources (e.g., financial, technical, manpower, etc) have been utilized to the maximum possible. The question raised in these forums is why is it then that poverty is rising and its persistence is having multifarious effects? One of the serious drawbacks identified in such forums is the lack of participation of the poor and the population in all matters concerning their livelihood and their life. The approach of ‘giver-receiver’ relationship has been identified as one of the root causes of poverty persistence. This type of approach stymied the sense of ownership, sense of pride, sense of enterprise and sense of ownership of the people. The means becomes counter productive and the ends get entangled in a vicious cycle of poverty. Broadening this argument and analyzing indigenous knowledge and practices we can cite some examples on how traditional society responses to daily life and sustains their livelihood by using their traditional beliefs and practices in mitigating their daily predicament. The works of Bronsilaw Malinowsky is a classic case.
When Bronsilaw Malinowsky lived and worked with the Trobriand Islanders he not only influenced and changed the course of modern social anthropology. His contributions have also influenced beyond the boundary of Anthropology and the academic world. The approach, process and method of understanding, analyzing and working with the people that he adopted have greatly changed the attitudes and behaviours of researchers and development specialists. The concept of culture he articulated and the interpretation of culture which Malinowsky based his research and developed provides a framework for both academics and non-academics. Drawing on the various cultural items, beliefs and practices of the Trobriand Islanders he analyzed and showed the functional needs of culture. Like for example the role of magic as the bridgeable gap between man’s knowledge and his practical control. Magic plays a significant aspect for a community because their survival depends on the sea as its resources for their livelihood. The unpredictable and the uncontrolled behaviours of the sea create a sense of fear and insecurity. To go into the open sea means to be vulnerable to the unknown. This created fear that is fear for going into the sea and death is a possibility and fear for not going because the women and children will die of starvation. The choice is limited. The wisdom of solving survival crisis by invoking and using magic as the means is a profound thought and practical survival technique. Through magic the Islanders gained confidence, energy, and hope to proceed and accomplishment of tasks. The same is true with the belief and practice of sorcery. It acts as the enforcement of law and maintenance of order. In more than one way culture is an instrumental reality invented for satisfying the needs of man. Cheap college papers on DEVELOPMENT MODELS: DEPENDENCY MODEL VERSUS PARTICIPATORY MODEL
The importance of the example drawn from the work of Malinowsky is that it is able to provide an understanding that culture has many dimensions affecting all aspects of social life and relationships of the community and also the economy. Many of us who are being inculcated and educated in western philosophy and western theology may at times do not realize or take into cognizance nor value the role of different cultural items of a society. Many a times we perceived and remarked on the beliefs and practices of the “natives” or “ tribes” as superstitious and without any depth understanding consider these cultural items as detrimental practice for the society. We tend to glorify and propagate the ‘package labeled western’ whether in abstract form or in physical form to be good for the society. We further advocated that replication of the cultural item, belief and practice inherited from the forefathers with those from the western world. The issue here is do we know and understand the depth of cultural beliefs and practices of a society? Do we realize the implications and consequences of replication? Or are we passing cosmetic statements to suite or justify our limited knowledge of the reality in which we are relating with our mission? For the Trobriand Islanders culture is an instrument that plays a specific and distinct role in their survival. Another significant aspect is the wisdom of the society in inventing, developing and institutionalization of beliefs and practices for sustaining, maintaining and continuing, enduring and securing their life. We have to appreciate the survival concept, method and techniques that the society invented for its own continuity with out depending on any external agency or institution. This is the crux of the matter which the modern philosophy or western theology need to understand and adjust. Do not misunderstand that the author is taking a position of upholding all cultural items found in practice is justified and must be continued. That is not the point the author does not legitimize cultural beliefs and practices that are detrimental to the society. Continuing with our discussion on the Trobriand Islanders we will extend and link it with one of the societies of the north eastern region. The society we have chosen as an example is the Hynniewtrep society of Meghalaya. They are distributed in four districts (East Khasi Hills, West Khasi Hills, Ri Bhoi, and Jaintia Hills).
Like the Trobriand Islanders the Hynniewtrep society have their own distinct beliefs and practices, knowledge and resources. Take the example of the construction of village footpaths referred to as “Lynti Khasi” as opposed to footpaths or roads constructed by government agencies. The point we are making here is not about the physical form of the footpaths but the ingenuity in designing, planning and construction of footpaths. The forefathers recognized the need and necessity of movement of people from one village to another. In order to move they designed, planned and executed the construction of footpaths. The interesting aspect is that the forefathers did not possess any scientific degree nor are accessible to any new technology nor receive any financial support from any resources. They used local resources, local knowledge and local support in implementing their dream. The impact of these footpaths on the society can be observed from the convergence and congregation of villagers into the local market on every eighth day in different parts of the four districts. Today these footpaths still serve as the living testament of their vision and the power of the people in solving their own problems. There are many more such examples that we can provide. The fact of the matter is that people are capable of designing, planning, thinking, executing and analyzing their own situation. The question that puzzles us today is, what has happened to the same society that not only survive but also develop innovative ways in solving their needs is today suffering from dependency? What has made them so? What factors or causes that have negated their culture of self- reliance, innovation, and enterprise?
These questions are difficult to answer but we think history provides the clue and the facts. The entry of modern institutions and organizations into the Hynniewtrep society from 18 onwards is a significant aspect. Modern institutions and organizations brought along with them different ‘packages of western values, norms, and regulations’. These ‘packages’ were introduced, advocated, propagated, and implemented in the society. Over generations these ‘packages’ influenced and transformed the attitudes and behaviours of the people. We can briefly highlight the interaction between the ‘western packages’ and the Hynniewtrep society
#616; The colonization of the society under the British Empire and its effect one is the direct political control and management of traditional institutions within the colonized regime; and two, is the introduction of modern form of governance. The effect is gradual erosion of authority of traditional institutions which makes them wary of initiating any innovation less they are misunderstood and be subjected to punishment as found fit by the power holders. The other is subjected dependence of the traditional institutions on the colonial regime.
#616; The second wave is the entry of religious organizations via the colonial regime. They came and initiated and introduced all types of charitable programmes. Like modern education, modern health care, home for the orphanage, free distribution of second hand clothes, and free supplies of food items. Religious organizations became the centres of new faith and centres of charity. Gradually the people acquired values of dependency from these organizations. The people perceived that they can lean on and depended upon these organizations for all their needs.
#616; The third wave is the end of colonization but the beginning of union with the modern welfare state. The modern democratic state introduced and induced development programmes. All types of state’s schemes were formulated, introduced and implemented. The approach adopted is very similar to that of religious organizations. The people got another taste of welfarism known as “ grants”. The word “grants” became a household name because even the most remote village can use the term. Gradually the state becomes the supra-benefactor of the people.
The impacts of the entry and institutionalization of new form of institutions and organizations into the traditional society brought about a number of replications in values, perceptions, attitudes and behaviours, and life styles of the people. Traditional institutions were brought into the direct control and management of modern bureaucratic system. Traditional beliefs and practices are gradually replaced and they were influenced in adopting and adjusting into the new conditions. Like for example they can get their needs for free either through the charitable sources or the government agencies. Overall we observe a radical shift in the attitudes and behaviours of the society from being a society that can think, analyze, act, plan, implement to a society that depends on others. It has forgotten that its forefathers had given them rich cultural resources it can and should have used for its own benefits. Instead it seems it has totally forgotten that it has the power to do things and be responsible for its own future and the future of its coming generations.
We do agree contributions of modernization processes introduced and implemented by modern political institutions and religious organizations have enriched the society. The development of basic infrastructures, new form of occupation, health care and education are few examples. But there is the other side of modernization processes too that have partially polarized the society on the basis of political affiliations and political divisions and divisions of society on the basis of religious denominations. These were never part of the Hynniewtrep society. Beyond these the critical element is the gradual conversion of a society with its culture of self-reliance into a society with the culture of dependency. Today this society is overwhelmed by dependency and is unable to rationalize or overcome from this influence. It has reached a point where the society perceives that all its problems will be solved by someone else rather than using its own ingenuity as its forefathers had done. The culture of using and utilizing its own innovative mind, local resources, and enterprise is stymied by dependency. It is caught in a cycle of dependency and it is affecting its growth, progress and development. Whom do we blame?
The interesting part we observed in our contemporary situation are institutions like the state and organizations like the religious organizations are asking the people to change their behaviours and attitudes from being dependent to being enterprise and to participate actively. But the critical part is it is these very same institutions and organizations that are responsible in advocating, introducing and inculcating into the society the spirit of dependency. At the same time they (i.e., the state or organizations) are not willing to practice what they preach. Hardly there is space for people to participate actively. It seems their idea of participation means people should only listen, obey and act. It is short of nothing but double standards because on one side the people are never a total part of the decision-making concerning their life and their well-being and on the other is the call for participation. In such an environment can people really actively participate and develop the sense of ownership on whatever affects them?
The challenge we encounter and confront today is not the people. The people are doing their daily business as usual and they are managing their life and needs. The greatest challenges are the behaviours and attitudes of the people managing the institutions and organizations. Are they willing to change? We do agree that people is the society. But for all practical purposes there are managers managing the society. They are located in institutions or organizations. They have power, authority and resources. Are these social managers willing to take up issues along with and for the people? Issues like controlling population explosion and sex education, political education and policy advocacy, and advocate land reforms and land ceiling act. If they do not initiate who will? Unless they are willing to change how can we ask the people to change. The thread follows where the needle leads. The only question I am interested to ask you today which is also the conclusion of this paper is, Are you willing to change? We have to make a choice?
Reader, Department of Sociology, North Eastern Hill University, Mawkynroh-Umshing, Shillong 70, Tel 064-551551
Presented in Oriens Theological College, Mawlai, Shillong, 8 July 00.
Notes
I am grateful to Prof. L.S.Gassah, Department of political Science, Nehu for reading, commenting and editing this paper. The same goes to Mr. Amba Jamir for raising pertinent clarifications.
1. Development is defined by Alexander(148) as a process of change that involves the whole society its economic, socio-cultural, political and physical structure, as well as the value system and way of life of the people.
. Participation is defined by Human Development Report(1) as people are closely involved in the economic, social, cultural and political processes that affect their lives. People may, in some cases, have complete and direct control over these processes - in other cases, the control may be partial or indirect. The important thing is that people have constant access to decision-making and power. Participation in this sense is an essential element of human development.
Participation, from the human development perspective, is both a means and an end, human development stresses the need to invest in human capabilities and then ensure that those capabilities are used for the benefit of all. Greater participation has an important part to play here it helps maximise the use of human capabilities and is thus a means of increasing levels of social and economic development. But human development is also concerned with personal fulfilment. So, active participation, which allows people to realise their full potential and make their best contribution to society, is also an end in itself.
. Malinowsky, Bronsilaw (1884 14). He did anthropological field-work among the Trobriand Islanders, New Guinea. One of the principal features of his theory is his treatment of cultural institutions as direct expressions of human needs.
Bibliography
1. Eisenstadt , S.N. 16. Modernization Protest and Change. New Delhi Eastern Economy
. Harrison, L.E. and Huntington, P.Samuel. 000. Culture Matters. New York. Basic Books
. Praxis. 17. PRA Behaviours and Attitudes. Patna. Institute for Participatory Practices
Please note that this sample paper on DEVELOPMENT MODELS: DEPENDENCY MODEL VERSUS PARTICIPATORY MODEL is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on DEVELOPMENT MODELS: DEPENDENCY MODEL VERSUS PARTICIPATORY MODEL, we are here to assist you. Your cheap research papers on DEVELOPMENT MODELS: DEPENDENCY MODEL VERSUS PARTICIPATORY MODEL will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality. Order your authentic assignment and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!