[Table of contents] [Previous Chapter: Thesis] [Next Chapter: Synthesis]

Antithesis

"Each person is a new marvel, a new mystery, a fully justified fact....We stand before each other in awe and wonder."
B. C. J. Lievegoed

She spoke with animation, with an energy which might have been intoxicating were it not so rigorously grounded. A kind of rational passion infused her speech. She was the director of an NGO which had recently worked through an organisation development process with a consultant; she was being questioned as to the value of the intervention.

"Look, I have just come back from a meeting with department officials, and for the first time I was able to hold my own with them, to resist intimidation, to resist their pressure, to stand my ground and to win significant concessions. You have to understand-they are all men, a whole roomful of them in their grey suits and dreary ties, smug in the righteousness of their bureaucratic power, disdainful of women, of NGOs, of the issues I was bringing. I never find it easy, facing that kind of situation alone, a stranger in a strange land. But today was different, I feel different, I am different, and I attribute a lot of that to the organisational intervention.

"So how did this actually happen?" She was anticipating our questions, and we decided to simply sit back and listen. "Firstly," she said, "you have to understand that the consultant who has been facilitating our own capacity-building has been working with us for many years. She doesn't fulfil donor specifications-we're her client, and the understanding and contract lies between us, not with the donor. It is up to us to raise the money to pay her, so together we have some control over our relationship. This gives her a certain freedom, to work with the issues which arise as important when they arise, and not to have to fulfil the expectations of others. Apart from this, she's worked with us for some years now; she knows the organisation, she knows the developmental steps we have taken, she can read where we are now and can begin to anticipate where our next steps, our next leaps, perhaps, might lie. That's the right word, "read", its what she does in order to help us move further, but she always somehow reads aloud, in other words we're fully aware of her thinking as we go, and she of ours.

"This time we had requested a conventional strategic planning session, an annual event for us. Now we're an organisation that has spent years developing and articulating our identity, our vision, our overall strategy and methodology. Yet during the first morning it became apparent that our main questions concerning the organisation centred on our inability to get in touch with these things, as a prelude to specific planning. We claimed not to know what they really were, what our essence was.

"Because she knew us, she could not believe that this was the real issue. She took us through a series of processes which proved that we were very aware of the essential nature of our contribution. She then ventured the opinion that it was not our lack of awareness that was the problem but rather our insecurity, our lack of acknowledgement of ourselves and our contribution-that is, the fact that we were unable to get in touch with our essence was the issue, not the lack of an essence itself.

"So she took us through a series of exercises which enabled us to become conscious of that which was unconsciously holding us back. In the process, we got in touch with our shadow. It seems to work like this, that the very things we pride ourselves on, consciously, release opposite energies which we are not conscious of and which thereby achieve immense ability to constrain our efforts. In our case, we pride ourselves on being an open and flexible organisation, almost without boundaries, an organisation which listens and responds, rather than presumes and imposes, an organisation which attempts to work developmentally with whatever it finds, rather than from a set of its own prescriptions. A nurturing, facilitative organisation. In other words, an organisation which tries to build the power of others, rather than its own. This is our light. But the shadow which emerges and which seeks to gain dominance is then our own powerlessness, our inability to say no to the impossible number of requests that we get, our inability to hold our own in the face of the rigid certainties and expectations imposed upon us by those with whom we collaborate, by those whom we lobby and advocate towards. We become overwhelmed. And because so many others gain their power through rigidity and dogmatism, through seeking to impose their will on others, we lose a sense of our own power, of the value and importance of our essential responsiveness, of that which we bring. So we begin to feel insecure and shaky.

"All this was painful to acknowledge, but it proved to be an unbelievably developmental step for us. Each of us individually, and the organisation as a whole, was able to make conscious our own contributions to this dilemma, and through this we were able to realise our own power. Not to change our essence in order to match the power of others, but to gain confidence and clarity about our essential contribution, and to work proactively out of that new sense of power. We were enabled to feel sure of ourselves; we were enabled to regain what we previously had, but which we had lost along the way, as our very success had taken us into new realms of work and relationship.

"Having come so far, the rest of the strategic planning session followed its more usual course. But the value of the process lay in those initial stages, in the consultant's ability to read correctly the developmental stage that we were at, and to bring the processes which enabled us to transform, to move beyond. We were privileged to have a consultant who did not feel bound by any restrictions other than the needs of the development process itself, who felt free to venture in unusual directions. And for us, we have all grown immeasurably, and the organisation feels totally transformed, able once more to bring its light with clarity and purpose. More than this, we are able now to see the shadows which the light casts, we are able to catch ourselves when we lapse into powerlessness. We have become more aware of our own patterns, and are now able to exercise control, to take responsibility for our own future."

At the core of the CDRA's understanding of the concept of development is the recognition that development is an innate and natural process found in all living things. It is important for us to understand that as development workers we do not "bring" or deliver development, but intervene into development processes which already exist. Whether the intervention is into the life of an individual, organisation or community it is critical to realise that the process of development is already well established and needs to be treated with respect. The most fundamental challenge facing the development practitioner is to understand the development process into which she or he is intervening. To know where the individual, the organisation or the community is located on its own path of development. To understand where it has come from, how it has changed along the way and what the next development challenge is likely to be. And, to be able to "read" in this way, an openness is required, an ability to observe acutely and without preconception, but with a fine understanding of development processes, so that insight can be brought to observation. In short, a certain detachment is required, without pretending to supposedly scientific objectivity.

Equipped with this knowledge and understanding the practitioner can begin to assess how the resources that they bring will impact on the development process. Some of the most common examples of the consequences of the inappropriate introduction of resources are the increase of dysfunctional dependency on the provider of the resource, and the inappropriate use or abuse of the resources to the detriment of the recipient. Equally it is at times almost miraculous to experience the difference that an appropriate development intervention facilitated in a sensitive and responsive way can make to the genuine empowerment of the recipient. And this, surely, is the essence of a development intervention-the facilitation of growing awareness and consciousness such that people are able to take control of their own lives and circumstances, and exert responsibility and purpose with respect to their future. This inevitably implies also an activist stance; that is, assistance with confronting the manifestations and dynamics of power, however these may manifest. If a development intervention does not succeed in this, then it can hardly be said to have been developmental.

To locate the recipient of one's services on their own path of development, and understand the implications of the point it has reached, is obviously not a simple process of quantitative measurement. It demands a clear understanding of the development process itself, coupled with respect for the specific instance of such a process which one is actually facing. We cannot go into the details of such a framework for understanding in this text, but we will raise one or two aspects of our understanding, of our framework, in order to provide at least a sense of what we mean.

Thus, one aspect of our understanding of the process of development identifies three discernible phases of ideal unimpeded development which we apply to understand humans as well as the social systems they create. The first phase characterised by dependence is a period of great learning and skills acquisition in which others play a major role in providing the environment and resources required for growth. The second phase of independence entails a fundamental change in relationship and a period of testing and personalising capacities and competencies, using them to act and impact on the environment in ways that help establish the actor as unique and self-reliant. The third phase involves another fundamental change in relationships towards increasing inter-dependence-the actor now understands that the full realisation of one's own potential is achieved only through effective collaboration with others.

Many examples can be found to illustrate the application of this framework of understanding in trying to better apprehend development in different situations. In the human individual the three phases would correspond with childhood, adolescence through early adulthood, and mature adulthood. The "pioneer", "differentiated" and "integrated" phases of development often referred to in organisation development theory can also be better understood when the phases are explored from the perspective of dependence, independence and interdependence. Even when looking at the fundamental relationship between humankind and nature (or the environment) over the ages the application of the framework adds insight. From dependence on nature, to the rational scientific phase characterised by attempts to gain control over nature and become independent of it, leading to the conscious rediscovery of environmental sustainability possibly heralding a developmental shift from independence towards interdependence.

It is critical that these phases are all recognised as developmental and one is not judged as being superior to any other. The full and positive experience of each phase provides learning and capabilities which are vital to the ability to engage in the next phase. Each phase is essential to the next and each subsequent phase carries within it the experiences of the phases which preceded it-it is not possible to skip phases. It is also necessary to recognise that these phases are continually recurring and overlapping in the course of the life of an individual, organisation or community-as one develops one encounters new areas in which these sequenced phases must be experienced afresh. Although skilled and sensitive interventions can help avoid and even remove hindrances and blockages to the process, development does have a pace of its own. There is an absolute limit to the extent to which it can be speeded up through the application of increased resources and developmental interventions.

Following on from the recursive nature of the development process, alluded to above, a further defining characteristic, one which sets development apart from quantitative growth, is its non-linear nature. Development does not constantly progress along a smooth incremental line; at critical points in the process there are periods of significant crisis and turmoil, periods when everything that has previously provided stability and meaning are questioned and challenged, periods when conflict is often symptomatic. These developmental crises serve a critical function in providing the impetus for letting go of the old in order to take on the new (another critical feature of the development process). Often the crises need to be of such gravity that those involved know that there is no option other than to break the old forms in order to build the new. The seeds of crisis are sown in each phase of development and grow at their own pace as the process unfolds; the passing from one phase to another is prompted by their germination. To understand where an organisation has gotten to in its development, the development practitioner must read her or his client's needs deeply, and with respect-this goes way beyond the conventional practice of needs analysis, whether this be participatory or not.

There is a seeming contradiction in what has been written above. Development is non-linear, therefore unpredictable and even anarchic; at the same time, there appear to be natural phases, sequences and modalities which can be said to characterise the process as a particular pattern or arrangement. The contradiction is a real one, but rather than being the kind of contradiction which demands resolution, it can be seen as the beating heart of development itself, an irreducible tension which provides the energy to fuel the process. A constant interplay between order and chaos, between form and flow. Which is one of the primary characteristics-according to recent advances in thinking prompted by the "new sciences"-of all living systems.

It follows from all of this-which really provides just a taste of the dynamics of the development process, just the first hint of an appreciative framework for grasping it-it follows that development interventions are essentially about the development of people, and that development cannot be imposed. No actor will develop in a particular way just because someone has argued eloquently that they ought to do so. Ultimately, development is driven from within, so while a development worker must bring specialist knowledge and skill to an intervention, the final outcome of the intervention is determined by the client. Moreover, development processes take time, significant periods of time; and their flow-in terms of both time and outcome-cannot be determined beforehand. An effective development practice accompanies clients through their developmental changes; once-off interventions and pre-designed packages are quite literally besides the point.

Finally, while all clients develop, none does so in quite the same way as any other. So developmental interventions are not "expert products or packages of resources" delivered as input to organisations. Rather, they are processes which are created and applied in response to particular situations. Whatever else they are, and whatever else they deliver, they are purposefully and specifically geared towards helping people gain an understanding of themselves such that, in time, they are better able to take control of their own future and to themselves arrive at effective solutions to questions, problems and concerns, including economic and political marginalisation. This is not to say that the development practitioner should not play an activist role-on the contrary, solidarity is vital, as is the creation of enabling environments in which people are freer to pursue their processes of development. It is only to say that development work itself must leave people in more control of their circumstances, whatever those may be, and not subservient to those circumstances, however advantageous these may be.

Ultimately, then, the development paradigm which we are articulating here has little to do with the transfer of resources, which we saw earlier as the notion which informed the traditional approach to development. On the contrary, development is about facilitating resourcefulness, and this is a vastly different take on a very tired subject. A perspective which demands a vastly different response from practitioners. We would like to take the reader through the points raised in the previous section, in the same sequence, in order to demonstrate the difference between the conventional, and this alternative, paradigm.
--    Development cannot be created or engineered. As a process, it exists independently of the development practitioner. All that we can do is facilitate processes which are already in motion. Where they are not in motion, it would be best-and honest-to refrain.
--    Development is not something which is brought. Being driven from within, it is not the prerogative of an outsider. Respect for the integrity of others' processes must be paramount, not simply from a moral point of view but because of the reality of the development process. As development practitioners we can assist the flow of the process, but nothing more. It is not so much that we should not impose, but that we cannot-witness the history of the development endeavour to date.
--    Real-and read here also "honest"-development work cannot be done to others on behalf of third parties. (Third parties being those with a vested interest-however benign-in the future of others whom they resource, influence or control.) Development interventions have to flow out of the development processes of those seeking to develop. If development interventions are designed by third parties, and not through the free interaction between development worker and client, then it must categorically be stated that the result is not development work; it becomes at best a patronising collusion, at worst a cynical manipulation. This has huge implications for current practice with respect to the financing of development. Instead of fearful control, space must be allowed for real and responsive development practice to take place.
--    Similarly, intervention specifications which are "predetermined", and which do not respond to accurate and sensitive readings of the particular situation with which a development practitioner is faced, will warp and destroy the development process. And also, because situations change continuously in response to the development intervention (and other factors) responsiveness and flexibility and mobility are required from the development practitioner. And from the development organisation. This places large responsibility on the practitioner and organisation, and demands new capacities with respect to-at least-reflecting, learning and managing.
--    Development is not linear and predictable. Quite the contrary. We can never know quite what will flow out of a development intervention. There will always be outcomes which had never been planned, detours from paths which had been planned, unexpected reactions and contradictory achievements. An accurate reading of the actual-and largely intangible-developmental place where the client is at will help, but never entirely. "Output" is never based on input but on a complicated array of factors, including the precise relationship between "input" and the developmental process being intervened upon. Our assumptions will always be inadequate, although of course they must be made, for they form the foundation of any intervention; but always with due caution.
--    Development has no end; the effective development intervention opens things up, rather than closes them down. Equally, development does not begin when we decide to intervene; it had already begun. The concept of the development project, then, with its beginning and end, its externally generated specifications, its notion of predictability and its lack of adaptability and mobility, has little to do with the effective development intervention, let alone with development itself. Indeed, the concept of the development project is anathema to the concept of development. It is a figment of an engineering mindset, at best a managerial tool used by a form of management inimical to development work, at worst a donor requirement to fulfil inappropriate financial control systems. Given its place at the very heart of the development system, it demonstrates both the misguidedness at the core of that system as well as the system's intractability. It is the repository of all that is wrong with conventional development practice, and the greatest stumbling block to effective development interventions. (It is ironic that so much that goes by the name of "capacity building" today entails training NGO management in what is called "project management".)

This is not to say that development practitioners and organisations should be given freedom (and licence?) to simply do whatever they want without frameworks to ensure accountability. It is not to say that parameters should not be set for development interventions. Such parameters would include objectives, time-frames, strategies and evaluation criteria. But it is important to regard these as guidelines for continuous monitoring, learning and adaptation-on the part of practitioner, client and donor-with respect to intervention processes. It is imperative that we recognise the development process as the issue, rather than successful implementation of a particular project. And it is critical to understand the project as a mere fragment of such process, rather than confuse it with the development process itself.
--    It was George Bernard Shaw who stated that: "Reformers mistakenly believe that change can be achieved          through brute sanity". Processes of development are beset with unconscious factors, and realities of
       tradition, culture, motivation and resistances to change. We fool ourselves at our own peril, and we have
       been fooling ourselves for years.
--    Quite simply, development practitioners skilled in facilitating processes of change are of far more value to the
       development endeavour than technical experts, advisors or trainers.
--    Development always, somewhere, assumes a preferred culture or value system, or way of doing things. This
       is implied in the very notion of intervening in others' processes. We can mitigate this, but we will never get
       rid of it entirely, even when we operate out of an alternative development paradigm. This takes us
       immediately to the next point.
--    It is precisely because of our own unconscious projections and assumptions that we, as development
       practitioners, have to pay attention to our own development. This is not a luxury, and it is not an addendum
       to other capacities; it is a central requirement of the discipline. At the very least, how can we possibly
       presume to intervene in others' development if we do not understand our own, or if we are not prepared to
      engage in our own? At the most, it will enable us to read the developmental processes of others without that
       reading being tainted by our own unconscious and unworked through norms, beliefs, values and
       psychological disabilities. Reciprocity.
--    Participation is an end, not simply a means. The whole point of development is to enable people to
       participate in the governance of their own lives. If this is not seen then the entire development endeavour
       becomes a farce.
--    The insistence that successful development projects be replicable-as a condition for that success-assumes
       that different situations are equal to each other. On the contrary, every situation is unique; every client is on
       their own development trajectory. Certainly we can learn principles and guidelines, develop insights, from
       both successful and unsuccessful development interventions, but the attempt to replicate is part folly and part
      disrespect for the specificity of people's processes of development.

--    The issue of sustainability is a thorny one. In its current general usage as "financial sustainability", the concept          is inadequate, inappropriate and sometimes harmful as an assessment of a successful development
       programme; stability and stasis are foolish expectations. Sustainability, in terms of its applicability to
      development interventions, is more about achieving the ability to keep moving, changing, and improving one's
      "response-ability" to inevitably shifting circumstances, rather than assuming that those circumstances will ever
       be finally and successfully resolved, once and for all.
--    The evaluation of development interventions must therefore take place against the background of the specific
       development process which has been intervened into, not against the ends stipulated in a project document.
       This too has radical and far-reaching implications. There is often far more that might have been gained
       beyond the boundaries of original expectations, if we are only open to looking beyond these boundaries, and
       beyond the boundaries of our own input.

[Table of contents] [Previous Chapter: Thesis] [Next Chapter: Synthesis]