METHODOLOGICAL PATHWAY FOR THE CRITICAL ESSAY

The “pathway” for the critical essay

Objective: unpack A MULTI-LAYERED, THICK PROCESS

Attention: YOU OBVIOUSLY YOU WON’T HAVE TIME TO DO ALL THIS IN YOUR ESSAYS. HOWEVER THIS IS THE KIND OF QUESTIONS YOU HAVE TO ASK YOURSELF BEFORE MAKING A CHOICE ON PARTICULAR ASPECTS YOU WOULD LIKE TO TACKLE IN YOUR WORK

The social and intellectual origins of the “project”

The ways in which an “issue”, a “threat” and a “crisis” have been identified, and at the basis of the definition of a “need” to intervene. “Crisis” are not natural and not all are addressed. This reflects power relations, and/or the evolution of societies. THEY DO NOT REFLECT AN OBJECTIVE INTENSITY OF THE PROBLEM. 

How are situations qualified? 

Were there mobilisations of particular categories of population to ATTRACT development/intervention? How did they mobilise? 

How was the “issue” measured and known? Statistics and numbers are not autonomous from politics. They reflect socio-political process AND are USED in narratives, especially success stories. Cf. Morten Jerven, Poor Numbers. How We Are Misled by African Development Statistics and What to Do about It, (Cornell University Press, 2013) and Cf. Joel Glassman, Humanitarianism and the Quantification of the Human Needs (Routledge Humanitarian Press, 2019).

Who and/or what is made RESPONSIBLE of the project? Why?

How was the decision made? 

FOLLOW THE MONEY! Who are the funders? 

Who were/are the actors involved in the elaboration: private, public, international (private and public): what power relations between them? What are the SOCIAL CONDITIONS of these alliances/partnerships?

Be particularly attentive to the power relations between internal and external actors: cf. mobilisation of the notion of “extroversion” by JF Bayart “think dependency without being dependentists”: ‘L'Afrique dans le monde : une histoire d'extraversion’, Critique internationale, 1999/4 n° 5, 1999. p.97-120. 

What were the initial plans (blueprints)? 

Unpack the “buzzwords” of development (Andrea Cornwall) or what Ferguson calls “devspeak” and “devthink”, “jargon”: denaturalize them, origins of terminology, transformations, appropriations. Cornwall, Andrea. “Buzzwords and Fuzzwords: Deconstructing Development Discourse.” Development in Practice, vol. 17, no. 4/5, 2007, pp. 471–84. 

To what extent are the projects path dependent? Or to what extent ruptures with what has been done before? 

The political context of the decision and possibly the changes (regime change? Decolonisation?)

History of the State

THE LOCAL POLITICS: WHERE (was the dam built?) + local history of the presence of the State (differs according to regions within a country)

The setting up / implementation: by whom? 

Effects on local power configurations: political (formation of the State) and social (relations between social classes/groups/races/gender)

Reception by “beneficiaries” or “recipients”: local interpretations/understandings, rejections, appropriations + WHO rejects? What do they do to reject? 

IMPORTANT INSTRUCTION: even if you obviously can talk about it, try to take a step back from an assessment of the ‘success’ of the programme: THIS IS NOT WHAT I’M ASKING. WHAT I’M ASKING (THE COMMON “PROBLEMATIQUE” THAT YOU WILL ALL SHARE) : How does this particular project reflect and affect social hierarchies/power relations? 

You can assess this at different levels: local, international, national. Go beyond the planners’ intentions