[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Where relations of power and privilege were hidden in the past,to some extent (and under a new framework of conditions) they havenow been revealed.Arturo Escobar (1995) has analysed the depoliticised and technicisednature of development discourse.The apolitical structure of this dis-course has remained essentially unchanged since its outline was firstsketched during the late 1940s and early 1950s (ibid.: 42).Its technicistform was analogous to the framing of the South as if it were a picture.For the viewing subject (the development professional) it involvedexperiencing life as if he or she was set apart and unconnected with theframed object.The observing professional was absent from the encounterwith the picture, as if the viewing took place from a position that wasset aside and hidden.This ideological illusion made it possible tosatisfy the double demand of participant observation: that is, for theviewing subject both to be detached and objective and, at the same time,to interact with the object.The framing of the South in this way alsoinvolved a medicalisation of the gaze.The popular classes were nolonger seen in racial terms, as in the colonial period, but through themore modern categories of want and scarcity in relation to health,education, nutrition, capacity, and so on.Rather than a benign indiffer-ence, such characteristics now warranted unprecedented social action.In initiating this action, development discourse presented itself as adetached centre of rationality and intelligence; it was a matter ofanalysis and judgement for the development professional.Questionsregarding the relations of power and inequality that underpinned theencounter, that is, the politics of development, were absent since theywere not seen as relevant (ibid.: 47 52).Development discourse was away of conceptually transforming social life into a series of discretetechnical problems open to professional solutions.This apolitical discourse has come under pressure from a number ofdirections, not least from those NGOs that have sought to make theviews of the framed object heard above those of the viewing profes-sional (Chambers 1983) and the growing influence of gendered analysis.At the same time, while change has occurred at some levels, develop-ment discourse is not a single or unified structure.It is embedded inmany different networks and discrete systems.While there has beensome adaptation along the border with the new wars, in more tranquilor abstract areas of development, for example within economic ortho-doxy, the technicised discourse outlined above is still clearly recognis-able.It is not only conflict, however, that has challenged the apoliticalnature of development discourse.For some time, from what are knownas the complexity sciences, a different view of the world to which83 Duffield 4a 24/4/07 11:46 Page 84GLOBAL GOVERNANCE AND THE NEW WARSdevelopment subscribes has slowly been emerging (Dillon 2000).Thework of Fritjof Capra (1982) remains a useful introduction to this bodyof knowledge.Since the mid-twentieth century, the complexity sciencessuch as quantum theory, non-linear mathematics, biotechnology,micro-biology and cybernetics have been challenging and replacing theNewtonian world view that has held sway for several hundred years.The scientific revolution completed by Isaac Newton bequeathed to usa view of the cosmos as a vast and perfect clockwork machine governedby exact mathematical laws.Within this giant cosmic machine every-thing can be determined and reduced to a scientific cause and effect.The material particles that make it up, and the laws of motion and forcethat hold or repel them, are fixed and immutable.Set in motion at thebirth of the cosmos, this huge mechanical machine has been runningever since (ibid.: 52).Newtonian physics has had great success andproduced many discoveries that have since been absorbed intoeveryday life.By the mid-twentieth century, however, the Newtonianworld view had been superseded.From quantum theory, for example,what Capra calls a new physics has emerged.Rather than mechanicalprecepts, this is based on organic, holistic and ecological principles.What is in question is not a mechanism made up of many different basicparts, but a unified whole made up from the many relations between itsparts.Quantum theory, for example, does not deal with things but interconnections. As we penetrate into matter, nature does not showus any isolated basic building blocks, but rather appears as a compli-cated web of relations between the various parts of a unified whole(ibid.: 70).The new physics is based on a shift from objects to relations asthe object of study.Within this world view, the whole determines theparts, including the perceptions and actions of the observing scientist.In this respect, nothing is value-free, not even science (ibid.: 76 7;Rabinow 1996).This has led to a social and political divergence withinboth theoretical and applied science.Writing at a time when nuclearannihilation was a real possibility, Capra described this divergence asthat between the Buddha and the Bomb.Updating this position to thedawn of the twenty-first century, it could be described as being betweenGaia and Monsanto.The new physics has reconceptualised matter as not inert but vibrantand dancing
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]