Participatory Development - Problems in Groups

The first part here is a book review - if you are focused on the Problems in Groups issue, please skip ahead to that heading.

Book Review - Culture and Public Action
I just read this book on culture which was very disappointing, but it had one chapter on participatory development which I found very interesting.  The focus is on primitive tribes, but there are similar problems in the communities which we are fostering in Nicaragua.

The basic problem with the book is that it is very "scholarly".  It cites numerous published works and studies, but never really shares insights and stories.

Another problem is that it uses a very broad understanding of culture.  When we are dealing with development issues, I think the best definition of "culture" is as "world view".  It is the set of implicit values and judgments that people make about "how things work".  The book includes things like music, stories, dance, costume, etc. Thus, some contributors say there is NO relationship between development and culture.  In the broad meaning used, I would certainly agree.  I don't think a culture needs to change its music, art, etc., in order to develop.  But they would need to change things like the caste system of India - which is a "how things work" view of life that is very limiting.

In this perspective, the authors also undervalue the power of culture.  They seem to see it as something that is very malleable, and that people can choose to ignore.  They would benefit from exposure to the work of Hofstede, Cultures and Organizations, Software of the Mind.  Culture in this sense is not conscious - it guides judgment and thought from within.  It is the "software" of how we make judgments.

The book mentions Harrison and the culture and development school, but it casts them as extremists that view  culture as fatalistic allowing no hope of change.  I think that is a misreading of that school of thought.  Harrison does understand the power of a world view, and he is very much working on how one can change that.

One other redeeming thing about the book - damning with faint praise - is the chapter by Amartya Sen.  He is a Nobel prize economist, and his book, Development as Freedom, is really excellent.  His main contribution is to clarify what "development" should mean in this context.  It is not about acquiring things, or wealth, or power.  Development should be primarily focused on providing the basic freedoms required for every individual to develop to their full potential - in whatever area they choose.  The goal is the full enrichment of human lives, including art and poetry and music, as well as science and engineering.  My view is that as long as one human being cannot achieve her or his full potential, we are all deprived of their contributions.  And we are all made richer when one small child in Africa or Nicaragua can achieve their full potential.  As my friend Red Green would have it, "We are all in this together". Of course, the basic pre-requisites here include adequate food, shelter, education, health care, etc.  And that does require a level of wealth, for good or ill.

Book Chapter Available
The one chapter from the book that has good insights is actually available on the WWW.  The original PDF is gone, but Google has retained a "PDF view", which can be turned into a Google doc.  I really want to encourage you to read the original, as it has a lot of wisdom about how groups work in a social structure that is somewhat foreign to us.  You can find it here:  Participatory Development.

The Problems in Groups
What follows is an attempt to extract the highlights from this chapter.

After many hours in group discussion in communities in Nicaragua, I think this chapter has finally given me an insight into what exactly is going on.  I often see what I would term "childish" or "petty" interactions among individuals in a community.  I try to ignore them, but I always wonder just what is going on here.  In my world, their actions would be seen as "not mature."  In their world, they are the normal survival mechanism when you are dealing with group interactions.

On p. 12, the article points out that the role of elders in these societies is regarded as something akin to natural law - there is no way to change it.  This group, the "elite", has the power to ignore or violate decisions made by the group.  They can take over or capture the resources which are intended to benefit the whole group.  In African tribes, the "elders" is a very formal position.  In Nicaragua, it tends to be more a positional or historical thing where the "leaders" are not so formally designated.  In one example, a leader decided that he could make better use of the group's computer than the newly elected chair of the group.  Since he was a "leader" in their eyes, he could keep the computer without anyone raising a public fuss about it.  Everyone knows it is a problem, but no one can raise it publicly.

Group agreement is difficult to achieve in these social structures.  The normal mode of operation of groups in this "pre-urban" world, as the authors characterize it, is by group consensus.  The authors point out that the "pre-urban" group function is actually a cultural thing, which survives even in an urban setting.  In this type of group, majority voting is almost unthinkable. Disagreement is seen as threatening the very social fabric of the group, so it is to be avoided at all costs. Secret ballots would be even worse.  Any difference of opinion is seen as dissension and disruption, not as a way to achieve agreement.  This is especially true if the "elders" or leaders are not all in agreement.  In that case there would be no hope for the group to reach a binding decision.

Any dissension is seen as distrust, not as a normal path to a democratic or majority agreement.  The other side is also true - if there are personal animosities or history between individuals, these will be manifest as dissension in other areas.  This type of social structure cannot easily separate their "public" self and their "private" views when it comes to making group decisions.  The idea of a democratic process with majority rule does not have a strong underpinning in their social rules.

People of lower ranks, be it from age, or gender, or wealth and position, find it very difficult to speak their mind in group discussions.  As a result, they may just pay lip service to the discussion, and not support it or actually work against it. The time and energy required to achieve group consensus is also an illuminating discussion.  See page 15.  When I am in a group discussion in Nicaragua, it always strikes me that it takes an enormous amount of time and energy to gain any agreement and common understanding.  The group finds it painful to voice a disagreement, or to consider an opposing view as almost an insult.

The paper describes the difficulty of applying sanctions to group members who do not follow group rules. Exclusion from the group is very difficult and must be avoided at all costs.  It is seen as a very serious thing which actually puts the group at risk. .  Even serious malfeasance, such as embezzlement, may result in the person being removed from their position, but they will not be excluded from the group.

On page 16, the authors reflect a bit on how this type of group discussion is different in "modern" societies.  In these "tribal" or "pre-urban" societies, the group is seen as a closed entity.  Harmony is essential and discord is to be avoided at all costs.   The "pre-urban" groups tend to place the entire emphasis on the personal relationships that must be maintained within the group in order to keep it alive and functioning. In "modern" societies, the group is open to the larger world, where there are abstract and impartial rules which can be brought to bear.  Decisions can be made in these groups that are very difficult and delicate, but which do not threaten the group's very existence.

Quotes
Here are a few quotes that I thought you might enjoy:
---------------------------------
p. 17
By placing heavy emphasis on the virtues of highly personalized relationships, the economic theory of the community tends not only to overstress the effectiveness of decentralized group-based punishment mechanisms, but also to ignore the potentially perverse effects arising from invidious comparisons among community members. As a matter of fact, when people continuously interact in close proximity to each other, they have a spontaneous inclination to look at the situation of their neighbours or acquaintances to assess their own situation. When social and economic differentiation is low, such as is observed in tribal societies, constant comparisons, by thus arousing jealous and envious feelings, create a highly charged emotional climate that can easily lead to the implosion of the group. To counter this ominous threat, tribal societies have evolved egalitarian norms and standards of values that compel or induce enriched individuals to share their surplus with their brethren. This is done on the ground that solidarity is the cement which ties all the members of the community together and enables them to survive in the long run. As a rule, generosity and hospitality are highly praised behaviours in traditional rural communities and successful individuals therefore gain social prestige and esteem when they redistribute their surplus.

p.  18
Private wealth accumulation is actually perceived as an anti-social behaviour precisely because it is an attempt to break away from traditional solidarity networks. According to Guy Hunter, we are dealing with “levelling societies, in which attempts by equals to gain individual advantage are constantly suspected and bitterly resented”. At the root of this suspicious atmosphere is the “fear that the fundamental security of the village will slowly be lost if one individual after another can reach a platform of prosperity from which he might not need the help of the community and could therefore excuse himself from helping them”.

p. 21.
The picture of traditional lineage-based societies that emerges from the above discussion is bleaker than the one usually found in many popular accounts. Rather than idyllic ‘village democracies’ whose members interact in a free atmosphere of trustful cooperation based on well-accepted social norms, they appear as repressive societies where mutual control is constantly exercised, suspicions are continuously entertained about others’ intentions, inter-personal conflicts are pervasive, and a rigid rank-based hierarchical structure governs people’s life. This is what Bourdieu has called the ‘objective truth’ of these societies, one that is not allowed to come to the surface precisely because it could destabilize the village’s socio-political order.
------------------------------

There are many other insights and stories in the following pages (pp. 22 ff) that seem to me to be more limited to the African tribal mentality.  I would encourage my friends with an interest in Africa to read those more closely.

There are also warning words (p. 30) about the rapid development of opportunist NGOs to take advantage of the funds newly available to these efforts, without necessarily engaging in the participatory development that would benefit the society.