Dear Shobha
What a thoughtful and wise column did you write by blending and adding to the major themes Paul Hoebink (knowledge and values) and Alan Fowler (significance of language) addressed in their columns in such a well devised context of social justice and action.
I liked your call for listening to (the language of) ‘the other’ for whom the development effort is destined. Although the number of languages may diminish as you state, we should realise that most donors live in a world that does not understand the language of the target group. For its proper message they are therefore dependent on intermediaries from close by for the translation of its needs and the necessary action. Unfortunately this distance contributes further to the diminishing commitment of affluent societies towards development assistance, an attitude you are rightly deploring in your column. A larger effort should be made by all involved in ‘aided’ development in order to reverse that trend.
We should however also be aware of the fact that we may not always like what we hear when we do understand the language of the marginalised as the following example may illustrate. Some decades ago an intermediate technology engineer with roots in Northern Tanzania tried to advocate the use of a simple and cheap threshing device, which would alleviate the many burdens of the women who were used to remove the maize from the cob manually. The elders decided there was no need for such a tool as the women could cope with their tasks. The women were of course not consulted in this decision. The transcendental question then arising is: to whom should we listen?
Although I wholeheartedly agree with you that the urge ‘for the service of humanity at large’ has guided many individuals and perhaps also organisations in their action to bring about fundamental changes, I am hesitant to ‘demand’ such an attitude from nations or even individuals, perhaps making an exception for institutions that pledge to follow initiatives geared to civic driven change as mentioned by Alan Fowler. I myself feel more at ease with the view expressed by Jan Tinbergen who argued so convincingly that it is in the interest of the ‘developed’ countries to bring more parity to this world. Marginalisation breeds violence. This truth has only grown in importance. Apart from this self-interest, there are, as you also stress obligations stemming from treaties and conventions such as the universal declaration of the rights of men. Governments are deaf when prophets speak, but they are accountable for honouring commitments.
Joop Koopman, chair of Hivos 1984-1993
Between social justice and action
Between social justice and action
Dear Shobha
What a thoughtful and wise column did you write by blending and adding to the major themes Paul Hoebink (knowledge and values) and Alan Fowler (significance of language) addressed in their columns in such a well devised context of social justice and action.
I liked your call for listening to (the language of) ‘the other’ for whom the development effort is destined. Although the number of languages may diminish as you state, we should realise that most donors live in a world that does not understand the language of the target group. For its proper message they are therefore dependent on intermediaries from close by for the translation of its needs and the necessary action. Unfortunately this distance contributes further to the diminishing commitment of affluent societies towards development assistance, an attitude you are rightly deploring in your column. A larger effort should be made by all involved in ‘aided’ development in order to reverse that trend.
We should however also be aware of the fact that we may not always like what we hear when we do understand the language of the marginalised as the following example may illustrate. Some decades ago an intermediate technology engineer with roots in Northern Tanzania tried to advocate the use of a simple and cheap threshing device, which would alleviate the many burdens of the women who were used to remove the maize from the cob manually. The elders decided there was no need for such a tool as the women could cope with their tasks. The women were of course not consulted in this decision. The transcendental question then arising is: to whom should we listen?
Although I wholeheartedly agree with you that the urge ‘for the service of humanity at large’ has guided many individuals and perhaps also organisations in their action to bring about fundamental changes, I am hesitant to ‘demand’ such an attitude from nations or even individuals, perhaps making an exception for institutions that pledge to follow initiatives geared to civic driven change as mentioned by Alan Fowler. I myself feel more at ease with the view expressed by Jan Tinbergen who argued so convincingly that it is in the interest of the ‘developed’ countries to bring more parity to this world. Marginalisation breeds violence. This truth has only grown in importance. Apart from this self-interest, there are, as you also stress obligations stemming from treaties and conventions such as the universal declaration of the rights of men. Governments are deaf when prophets speak, but they are accountable for honouring commitments.
Joop Koopman, chair of Hivos 1984-1993