CULTURE AND CIRCUMSTANCE AS IMPEDIMENTS TO CHANGE:
A brief exploration of some of the challenges that impede the shift to a new development paradigm.

Gradually awareness is coming to many corners of the international development sector that real change will only happen when there is change in the fundamental nature of relationships between the many and various communities of the world. When rich and poor can talk together with respect and understanding, when the needs and rights of the third world are no longer automatically sacrificed to the powerful interests of the first, when difference is valued instead of feared and repressed, only then will the world become a just and equitable place in which all peoples live in expectation of a peaceful and sustainable future.

Currently the dominant paradigm holds that development is about the distribution of resources and expertise from those who have them to those that don't. Development processes in many countries originated in situations which called for emergency aid and relief and that beginning established the ongoing pattern for powerful resource holders to give and those apparently without power or resources to receive. Within this paradigm power and therefore the ultimate decision making authority inevitably rest primarily with those who hold the resources because few governments of, or groups within, developing or war-torn countries feel strong enough to say no to resource rich donors. There are of course exceptions to this generalization. For example, the socialist government of Vietnam has strong development policies and insists on its aid and development partners making their contributions in alignment with those policies as, when and where the government decides rather than according to the partners' policies or assessments of need.

That there is a pressing need for a substantive move away from the current paradigm cannot be in doubt if any of the facts and figures about poverty in the world are examined. There is now recognition of the need for significant change to happen before there can be any alleviation of poverty or improvements for the disadvantaged of the world. For many there is a growing belief that change will come for those currently on the receiving end of aid only when the patterns of relationships in aid and development have changed. In the proposed new paradigm relationships between the more and the less developed countries would be predicated on equality and respect for all and neither side would have power that was exercised to the detriment of the other. It would follow that those who are currently at a disadvantage would need to be fully empowered and enabled to make decisions about their development based on what they believe to be their own best, and long-term sustainable, interests. In order for this to happen those who currently control aid and development would need to be prepared to relinquish their hold on power.

For such a change to be effected new approaches and attitudes need to originate from both sides because if one party to a relationship becomes empowered and brings new and different perspectives to the relationship it is inevitable that the dynamics with the other side also change. History has repeatedly taught that when an oppressed or underprivileged group is determined to change their circumstances the process can go one of two ways. If the powerful resist, as did the French aristocracy for example, it results in the loss of many lives and much destruction. If the powerful recognise and engage with the inevitability of change, as did the South African apartheid regime, then the transition to a new order can be peaceful with potential benefits for all. The challenge is in how to start and sustain a process of change which would impact on global interests, local communities and all levels between, without starting a worldwide revolution.

No relationship ever changed because an external third party thought it should, so a peaceful and harmonious process of change can only happen from inside the relationship when its members have agreed to come together and engage in a dialogue of mutual purpose. At present the ranks of globally dominant and powerful interests would appear to be secure and comfortable in the status quo and few show signs that they recognise a need for change, or would welcome change should it come. Unless or until these groups perceive that some even greater benefit will ensue from a change it is unlikely that they will willingly surrender their advantage, and this is a fundamental challenge to the introduction of a new paradigm. The burden of initiating change, as with so many other burdens, rests with the poor and disadvantaged of the world and with those who seek to support them.

Ultimately the ability of disadvantaged people to take up this challenge rests not with their resources nor even in their capacities, but on the strength of their convictions and willingness to engage in the struggle for change – in short it depends on whether or not they have the heart for it. And therein lies a major problem because there will always be circumstantial and cultural situations when people do not have the heart for a challenge of this magnitude. Sometimes it may simply be a matter of timing, and given sufficient time people will find the strength they need. Instances of war and natural disaster leave individuals and nations weakened and prone to dependent or extractive relationships with others. In such situations it is often the case that once the immediate emergency is over and the communities or nations involved have had the short term assistance needed to regain their equilibrium they will be in a position to state clearly what they need and the terms on which they will accept assistance.

But not everyone recovers quickly. In post conflict situations many are left with debilitating negative emotions. An overwhelming need for security and certainty, the pain and detrimental after-effects of traumatic experiences, the gaping hole of loss left in families and communities after genocide are all powerful factors that have a bearing on how people think and behave. For many it will be years before anything really matters beyond ensuring that they have the ability to put food into their children's mouths today and run away with them tomorrow if it is once again necessary to flee for their lives. When daily survival is the only priority anything beyond the realm of immediate needs becomes irrelevant. In this context it needs to be recognised that ‘survivor behaviours' can and do continue, sometimes for decades, long after the danger has passed.

The cultural circumstances which prohibit people from being empowered in relationships are however, even more profound. Culture presents a very significant challenge to those who advocate the need for changes in relationships because some societies and cultures are based on a belief not in equality but on a natural order of inequality. In many Asian countries for example beliefs about the nature and structure of society are based on the Confucian precept of unequal relationships which holds that whether in families or other social groups any relationship will comprise not equals but a senior and a junior partner. How this manifests in beliefs about and attitudes towards everyday issues was demonstrated by Hofstede¹, in what he called the cultural dimension of power distance. This means the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organisations accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. Some of his findings for countries that have high power distance (i.e. where people expect to be distant from the sources of power that have the ability to affect their lives), which included all the South East Asian countries in his study, demonstrate how deeply these cultures would be at odds with a paradigm founded on equality. Some of the beliefs in these societies identified by Hofstede that are pertinent to this issue were:

    -    Inequalities among people are both expected and desired
    -    Less powerful people should be dependent on the more powerful
    -    Might prevails over right: whoever holds the power is right and good
    -    Power is based on family or friends, charisma, and ability to use force

These beliefs have resulted in, among other things, patron – client relationships being the principle way in which people relate to each other in South East Asian societies. The inequities that this brings to all relationships are accepted as the natural order. The strength of these beliefs and how they govern both behaviour and attitudes cannot be underestimated.

Beliefs about social hierarchies are not the only problem of compatibility with the thinking in the new paradigm. In many Asian countries the primary religion is Buddhism and there are significant teachings in Buddhism about the acceptance of suffering linked to beliefs about cause and effect (karma). That these beliefs are strong in Cambodian society has been noted by a number of studies². Also relevant are Asian attitudes to change which hold that tradition is the source of wisdom, and change is a negative thing to be avoided if at all possible.

The combination of these cultural views has not specifically been explored in relation to its impact on any philosophy of development, though the study ‘ Learning for Transformation' did throw important light on the subject when examining the beliefs and attitudes of development practitioners. The forces upholding the status quo are deeply rooted in all aspects of individual, communal and social thinking and are therefore unlikely to change easily or quickly, however much external observers believe that empowerment and the realignment of relationships are the foundational point of the change process.

So some important questions must be asked if the new language of development is to be relationships. How likely is it that people with beliefs such as those held in South East Asian societies will willingly challenge those they perceive to be more powerful than themselves? What interventions would it take, and how long, for anyone raised in such a belief system to see the world another way? The overriding question is ‘How can a paradigm shift come about for those who have no heart for the challenge because war and genocide have traumatised them into emotional paralysis or because their belief system denies the possibility of the social and world order being otherwise?' And in some cases, such as Cambodia , both those conditions apply, making the problem even more intractable. This is a fundamental problem which has yet to be fully articulated or addressed in most development strategies and practice.

Many groups and societies perceive themselves to be disadvantaged due to a lack of resources, or because of some other obvious material need. However, because of their deeply held cultural beliefs not all of these groups and societies are uncomfortable with the nature of their relationships with more powerful groups in the world. Simply to recognise all dimensions of the relationship in which they are engaged would be a major step forward for many people. Coming to believe that the inequalities are, in and of themselves, a wrong to be righted would be another major step and moving from that to action would be a challenge of monumental proportions. In such cases who can or should identify the needs and appropriate ways to meet them? Does anyone outside of any society have any moral authority to intervene at such a profound level?

Thus this problem raises an important ethical issue about the philosophies and implementation of ‘development' because imposition of an ideology for change has the potential to be just as unhelpful and unethical as the imposition of inequitable and conditional assistance. Trying to bring about a paradigm shift in societies with belief systems such as those mentioned above is likely to be doomed to failure unless approached in careful and culturally appropriate ways. It may perhaps be that this paradigm is not suitable for all societies and further thinking is needed to find ways that will bring beneficial and sustainable change where it is not applicable.

In societies that are governed by beliefs about inequality being the natural order change will only come if there is a change in that society's belief system and that can only come from within. For external forces to try to impose a cultural change of this magnitude would not only be impossible, but also unethical with many potential dangers. Within this complex dilemma one absolute certainty is that the thinking and practice of short term projects do nothing to address the long-term and underlying impediments to the effectiveness of aid in bringing change. Those in the development community who want to help alleviate the poverty and inequities of the current order need to consider an urgent refocusing of their efforts. The need is not for international organisations and development practitioners, to try to introduce change but to facilitate a process of deep analysis of the issues. In fostering healthy debate and discussion within relevant groups and communities development practitioners could create the conditions in which decisions would emerge from within about what is right for that society, now and in the future. Such processes could take generations to achieve any visible difference and therefore need long-term perspectives and commitment, great skill, great patience and, most importantly, disengagement with any preconceived ideas of what the outcome should be. To quote a community development practitioner working in the slums of Nairobi ‘You have to go in empty'.

Jenny Pearson
VBNK
Phnom Penh , Cambodia
November 2004