PELAKITA.ID – Between the 1970s and 1990s, a growing chorus of intellectuals from the Global South and critical scholars from the North began to challenge the dominant narratives of development.
Frustrated by the persistent poverty and inequality in post-independence nations, and disillusioned by the promises of modernization and even the critiques of dependency theory, these thinkers asked a profound question: What if “development” itself is part of the problem?
This marked the rise of postcolonial and critical development theory—a radical rethinking of how we define progress, who gets to define it, and what consequences follow when development becomes a global mission.
Development: A New Face of Empire?
In the decades following World War II, development emerged as the dominant paradigm guiding policy and international aid in newly independent countries.
The idea was straightforward: underdeveloped nations needed to follow in the footsteps of the industrialized West, climbing the ladder of modernization through science, technology, planning, and investment.
But for many critical scholars, this paradigm felt eerily familiar. It carried the same paternalistic assumptions of colonial rule: the West knew best, and the rest must follow. Postcolonial thinkers argued that development had become a new language of domination, one that justified interventions, controlled knowledge, and silenced local voices.
Key Thinkers: Voices from the Margins
Edward Said – Orientalism (1978)
In one of the foundational texts of postcolonial theory, Edward Said revealed how Western representations of the “Orient”—including Asia, the Middle East, and Africa—were steeped in stereotypes. These representations were not innocent; they were deeply tied to the power of colonialism. Said’s work helped us see that development discourses often portray the Global South as irrational, backward, or helpless—thus justifying ongoing intervention.
Arturo Escobar – Encountering Development (1995)
Though slightly outside the 1970–1990 frame, Escobar’s work was shaped by this critical era. He argued that development is not just a set of policies or projects, but a discursive system—a way of thinking and speaking—that constructs the “Third World” as a space of lack. For Escobar, the entire apparatus of development (NGOs, UN agencies, economists) perpetuated a vision of the world that required continuous management and correction by the West.
James Ferguson – The Anti-Politics Machine (1990)
Ferguson studied development aid in Lesotho and found that it often depoliticized poverty. Development projects focused on technical fixes—dams, roads, training programs—without addressing the root causes of inequality: land ownership, elite capture, state power. His sharp analysis showed how development could expand bureaucratic control while failing to deliver meaningful change.
Gayatri Spivak – Can the Subaltern Speak? (1988)
Spivak raised a critical ethical issue: when Western scholars or aid workers speak for the poor, are they truly representing them—or silencing them further? Her concept of the subaltern, or the most marginalized people who cannot easily voice their realities within dominant systems, challenged the very premise of representation in development.
Vandana Shiva – Staying Alive (1988)
A physicist turned eco-feminist, Shiva denounced the destruction wrought by development in the name of progress. She showed how it disempowered women, eroded biodiversity, and dismissed traditional knowledge. Instead of grand dams and green revolutions, Shiva called for indigenous knowledge, ecological balance, and local autonomy.
Ashis Nandy – The Intimate Enemy (1983)
Nandy argued that colonialism did not just conquer lands—it colonized minds. Development continued this psychological domination by making people ashamed of their own ways of life. He urged for a reassertion of non-Western knowledge systems, values, and ways of being.
Rethinking the Development Project
These critiques converged around several key ideas:
-
Development is not neutral. It is entangled with histories of empire, race, and power.
-
Knowledge is political. The dominance of Western models marginalizes indigenous perspectives and alternative ways of living.
-
Progress is plural. There is no single path to a better future—especially not one that dismisses local traditions or communal values.
-
Development silences. In seeking to help, it often denies people the ability to define their own priorities.
The Role of Economists: A Subtle Shift
While most critiques came from anthropology, literature, and philosophy, some economists also engaged with postcolonial concerns. Amartya Sen, though less radical in tone, challenged GDP-centric models and proposed a capability approach that emphasized individual freedoms, education, and health. Samir Amin, bridging dependency theory and postcolonialism, proposed “delinking” from global capitalism to allow autonomous development.
Indonesia: A Case in Point
Indonesia’s development under Suharto’s New Order regime offers a stark example of these critiques. With technocratic planning, massive infrastructure projects, and heavy reliance on foreign aid, development seemed successful on paper. But it came at a cost: displacement of communities, suppression of indigenous voices, environmental degradation, and the centralization of power.
Postcolonial thinkers would ask: Who benefited? Whose knowledge counted? Whose future was imagined?
Legacies and Alternatives
The postcolonial critique laid the foundation for:
-
Participatory development: giving communities a real voice.
-
Rights-based approaches: linking development to justice and dignity.
-
Post-development thinking: rejecting development altogether as a Western fantasy, and proposing alternatives rooted in local cultures, ethics, and ecologies.
Even today, calls to “decolonize development” echo these earlier insights. They remind us that development should not be about helping others become like “us,” but about recognizing the dignity, complexity, and autonomy of every community.
Final Reflection
The postcolonial critique of development was not merely academic. It was a call to humility, to listen before acting, to honor rather than overwrite. It asked a difficult question: What if the real task is not to develop others, but to unlearn our own assumptions about what development means?
In a world still marked by inequality and ecological crisis, that question remains as urgent as ever.
Source: Wikipedia/Internet