« Red Hot Rhythm | Main | A Visionary Achuar, and my Laptop »
July 14, 2005
Two Paradigms for Development
On Wednesday, June 29 (I really haven’t written in a while), I went to a great meeting at the Center for Economic and Social Development of Ecuador (CDES), where two panelists spoke about different paradigms for alternative development in the Central Southern Ecuadorian Amazon. An amazingly intelligent anthropology professor named Teodoro Bustamante spoke first, presenting a framework for cooperative development that reconciles and forges a singular identity out of Western and indigenous cultures...i.e. he believes that indigenous cultures in the region have no choice but to compromise and incorporate aspects of Western culture into their development models. He believe that this is necessary for the long term successful preservation of these cultures and alternative economic development of the region, that they must at least understand the West in order improve the lives of their people.
He spoke of marginalization, and that the goal of development is to make these people and their cultures autonomous and prosperous in their own way rather than marginalized and forgotten. In terms of alternative development, he presented striking evidence that in zones of petroleum extraction, poverty is no worse than in other regions of the Amazon. However, grand contamination of water, land, and air, the resulting health problems, delinquency, and violence are all worse. In his view, the goal of development of the region was to overcome the current marginalization of the zone (embodied by the highest rates of illiteracy of all the Ecuadorian Amazon) without producing the problems characteristic of petroleum zones.
In his view, indigenous nations in the region need 1) services (such as health care, education, and technology); 2) money--in his opinion, and I agree with this from what I’ve witnessed of the Shuar and Achuar, the indigenous are pressured to and then embody the desire to consume; and 3) they want legitimacy and valorization of their people, culture and territories by outside groups and the Ecuadorian government. He calls on local, national, and international organizations to help in the effort, but described that “consensual plurality and coordination” (“articulación pluralista consensuada”) among the indigenous organizations with their own people and with the outside is the key to successful alternative development.
After Prof. Bustamante ended his presentation, a Shuar named Marcelino, who is also a professor, spoke about a resistance paradigm, where nonviolent but substantial resistance originates from the Shuar, and then they are allowed to implement their vision of development in their own way. He first dissected the current indigenous political process in Ecuador, explaining how divided it is in reality. He explained that under land titles and as seen by the government and international organizations, the Shuar lands, while they are collective, are actually a set of territories with different interests and conflicts among them. These divisions are greater at the higher levels of indigenous political organizations like CONAIE. However, divisions are masked over, and in the process, fewer voices and needs are heard. Alliances that understand the differences among indigenous groups and promote comprehensive solutions are necessary.
Marcelino then went on to discuss development, that current efforts at development must fit into indigenous visions for the future, and that both must be incorporate into a political body of self-governance. Thus, he does not believe in a syncretism of culture but of autonomous development based on indigenous cultural visions for the future. Furthermore, because of the bombardment of Western culture and its ever-present decisions to trample over indigenous culture, as well as its attempts to impose its own visions of development (extractive industries or even other forms of “alternative development”), Marcelino sees the need for resistance in order to carry out autonomous, alternative development. This resistance, in his view, will be constructive rather than conflictive. For resistance to be successful, all indigenous people, from the grassroots level to the leaders of their organizations, must become gain consciousness of their goals and visions of development. They must construct and define their identity and visions of the future within their culture first, and then project this and gain support for these visions second. When this occurs, indigenous peoples will find the spirit of money, that they will value money but break away from capitalist logic. In this way, they will promote autonomous alternative development which may vary among indigenous territories because of the different visions of the people.
In the discussion afterwards, some interesting issues arose. Mario Melo, an important lawyer who organized the meeting at CDES, explained that these ideas for development that have been generated in the meeting cannot just be proposed but must be implemented. He argued that a key to successful development would be strong, well-administered, but at the same time participatory, indigenous organizations. He pointed to the Sarayaku and FINAE (Achuar org) as prime examples of strong indigenous organizations. Theodoro concurred that strong and positive leadership is necessary, but reaffirmed his argument that alternative development must incorporate some aspects of Western culture and cannot just celebrate ancestral culture. Finally, Marcelino spoke, invoking a stronger argument for resistance, saying that it is worth enacting positive changes for the indigenous peoples even if it might mean paralyzing the rest of the country.
Taking a bit from both is, as usual, to me what makes the most sense if and when such development plans get put into action. The resistance paradigm seems most culturally sensitive and will produce a more positive outcome in the long run. However, I agree with Prof. Bustamante that an understanding of Western culture, as well as its political and economic structures, is necessary in the struggle to gain the better provision of services such as health care and education (most likely from the Western-structured Ecuadorian government) as well as gain desired political and economic autonomy to undergo development according to their own beliefs and desires. Such knowledge will also be necessary to receive funding from national or international organizations to support their visions of future alternative development.
The thing that frustrates me is that, on this topic, there's so much theoretical talk and not enough action. Critically thinking and then coming up with NEW realistic solutions is always easier then reading and analyzing previous material and then asserting a position which isn't all that practical. I hope that future meetings (which WILL occur over the next few months) will produce concrete ideas for implementing these paradigms. The meeting was incredibly stimulating and intelligent, and the two long presentations made me feel like I was back at Brown, except with a Shuar professor. Unlike at Brown, the stakes were raised quite a bit, because, with half those in attendance coming from indigenous nations, the people discussing these development models were those directly affected by development planning and decision-making processes.
Posted by Lee Gilman at July 14, 2005 05:03 PM
